Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) – International Arctic Research Center (IARC) – Click the pic to view at sourceOf course NSIDC has a 5 day average, so we won’t see a change for awhile. Time will tell if this is just a blip or a turn from the new record low for the satellite data set.

Looks to me like the sea ice the August storm broke up is beginning to refreeze, the fragmented area seems to be increasing in size, check to time stepping link below, The next few days should tell us if it has turned round early. http://ocean.dmi.dk/satellite/index.uk.php

From previous years’ graphs, it seems that similar fake inflexion points have happened in the past. The sad reality is that the 2012 minimum is lower than even 2007. This will provide endless fodder to fan AGW fires in the MSM.

Using the info and link from the WUWT Sea Ice page, the daily mean temperature and climate north of the 80th northern parallel has already dipped below the melt line as normal.http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

It appears that rapid melt coincided with the Arctic storm in the first 10 days of August. If the storm was indeed the cause, by breaking and churning the ice on one hand and ‘lifting’ the warm water from some depth, the saline warm water would have cooled by now and cold and brackish will sink, leaving only fresh water (from the ice melt) at the top, then unless there is another storm, a rapid freeze will follow.

Everyone should take the time to look at the arctic now that there are some big breaks in the clouds to the north of the Chukchi Sea (Bearing Straight). The current view is still Sept. 3 and you’ll have to really zoom in to see all of the ice many agencies seem to say there is none at all. That’s not what I see there. Watch for straight edges to help differentiate from some clouds and you can then see the broken chucks of ice. So that is where all of the missing 2012 ice went to.

It would be surprising if it did not move up and down a bit near minimum – just as it does near maximum.

The story this year is a new record melt in the satellite record, not slightly, but by a large margin.

Just how much evidence is needed that the arctic is warming fast – look at the anomalies in sea surface temperature, ice area, ice extent and volume.

The spurious reasons put forward for this cannot deliver the energy required to produce the observed warming and melting across an entire region nor do they explain why this is happening now, so fast, or why the trend is one way.

There is likely to be a rapid refreeze because large areas of open water are going to be exposed to falling sub-zero air temperatures when the Sun sets at the pole, and then the rest of the arctic, over the next few months. But that ice will be thin and vulnerable to a big melt again next year.

Larger amplitude freeze/melt oscillations set in after the 2007 minimum

and could get larger as the summer minimum heads towards very low levels.

I previously posted a range of zero extent possibilities based on 3 interpretations of the September 1979-2011 minimum plot. Earliest 2019 (steady acceleration in decline), latest 2065 (linear).

If we take the current extent as the minimum (which of course it may not be), 2012 trends below the 2019 curve ie consistent with a largely ice free arctic in September within the next 6 years. Accepted it is one year, which alone cannot be used to predict the future, but I would suggest the trend is clear to anyone who looks at the data objectively.

Am I seeing things or isn’t it turning a bit later every year, kind of shifting the curve to the right ever so slightly year by year?…..”””””

Maybe you have it backwards. I seem to recall that the 2007 minimum was very late, and 2008 was at least a wek earlier. If this is a turn, it seems pretty early. But I’ll be happy if it just turns before next March.

Over the years posters at WUWT have made multiple predictions of recovery and myriad derogatory remarks toward arctic scientists and their conclusions. In spite of this, an ocean of ice is disappearing before our eyes. Those that have bet against this trend in sites such as Intrade have lost heavily, melting away like the ice floes themselves. The arctic is telling us all something very important, if we will just listen.

Just a WAG but other things being equal, if the sea ice gets all smashed up in a storm, thereby increasing the total ice perimeter ( assuming not a massive melt down), would one expect a refreeze; once it starts, to go somewhat faster ?
Just asking ?

The rapid decrease in sea ice area/extent was probably the result of one of the strongest Arctic summer cyclones ever recorded. Rain and windswept waves would have compromised the total area/extent numlbers. With the decrease in temperature, that fresh water rain will have frozen and the sea water would also have frozen. Notice the North pole camera shows that open sea water has now refrozen?
I have noticed many things at this site….Thanks Anthony and crew. One is that, while many sites deal with sea ice,none of them seem to relate that much to each other.The temp in one does not relate to the temp at another. Any site that ignores areas of 15 % or less has to have their methodology questioned. Not to mention that they limit coverage to 100%. Wind can blow sea ice one meter thick on top of one meter sea ice forming multi meter sea ice while reducing the area even when the amount of sea ice is the same.

Of course there are those that don’t recognise a noisy, hysteretic loop obviously driven by geography and zenith angle and claim to be able to predict an anomalous trend based on 30 odd plot points with huge error bars. Fine, carry on with the hand wringing. My lawn needs a trim.

The main thing that strikes me in this graph is that there’s nothing special happening. Not a trend toward catastrophic melting, not a trend toward total freeze. 2012 is just a bit more extreme on BOTH ends than the previous few years, but the extreme-ness is very small compared to the summer-winter delta.

The interesting thing in that graph is the increasing winter maximum ice extent.

If I am right and the main cause of the record melt is increased solar insolation (from decreased clouds) melting dirty ice (with embedded BC), then we should continue to see above average winter maximum ice extent and increasing summer minimum extent as most of the dirty ice has been melted, and new ice with less embedded BC is more resistant to insolation driven melt. This will occur either next year or the year after.

Ammonite;
The arctic is telling us all something very important, if we will just listen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What? What is it telling us Ammonite? That the earth is getting warmer? We knew that. It has been getting warmer for 400 years now. That the arctic is warming faster? We knew that too. What? What is it trying to tell us? That natural variability is orders of magnitude larger than the long term trend? We knew that. That this has happened before? We knew that.

What, Ammonite, it it trying to tell us? Can you give us some specifics?

“Over the years posters at WUWT have made multiple predictions of recovery and myriad derogatory remarks toward arctic scientists and their conclusions. In spite of this, an ocean of ice is disappearing before our eyes. Those that have bet against this trend in sites such as Intrade have lost heavily, melting away like the ice floes themselves. The arctic is telling us all something very important, if we will just listen.”

Spot on.

The WUWT banner says the site is about commentary on (amongst other things) science. Call me old fashioned, but to do science you need data – evidence – observations. Predicting ice recovery based on wishful thinking, in turn based on a predetermined position, is anti-science.

Good find. I’m actually surprised to see a whole article written on it quite already, since, as apparent from the webcitation for it I created on August 31st (guessing in advance it would be deleted), it was online as recently as literally just 4 days ago: http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo

But the timing makes sense. There is extra attention on arctic ice right now, so something so inconvenient would need one creative excuse or another to eliminate.

“Predicting ice recovery based on wishful thinking, in turn based on a predetermined position, is anti-science.”

The climate alarmist crowd is anti-science, and Abbott’s comment is pure projection. I can only speak for myself, but I have never predicted ‘ice recovery’.

What I have stated many times is that the current Arctic ice cycle is entirely natural, and has been repeated throughout the Holocene. As we see here, Arctic ice is currently just about normal [since the 1970’s].

The one thing the alarmist crowd can brag about is their success in framing the Arctic ice debate. They say, “See! Arctic ice is declining! Global warming!”

But the planet has been warming at about the same rate for the past four centuries. Therefore, CO2 has nothing to do with it. The Arctic could become entirely ice free, and the alarmist crowd would still have no scientific evidence showing that human activity is the cause.

So, Abbott, post any scientific evidence you have. Or admit that what we are observing is nothing more than natural climate variability. Or stay in your anti-science bubble.

Start of August ~half a million km2 of ice was churned, moved, destroyed by a large Arctic storm. My thoughts are that the broken churned ice will melt very quickly (like a slushy melts quicker than a block of ice) hence the steep decline over the last month. Now looking at the trend up to the storm, this year’s melt was following a 2011 melt path (from mid June to first week of August). Note when the storm hit the deviation off the 2011 path. Now look at the current level. It’s ~half a million km2 lower than 2011 at the same date.

To me, we’ve seen the rapid melt of ~half a million km2 of churned ice after the storm, plus the normal melt that would have occurred under average conditions. Now the churned ice is gone there’s no ice where there was in 2011 (see the 2007-2012 comparison image on the ice page to see where all that ice went from). Now the line will play catch-up I believe, and stay about this level till refreeze takes over around the normal time it does.

And what if the storm had not have hit? Hard to say, but I think we’d have seen a melt a lot closer to 2011’s and no record.

This would indeed be an early start to the refreeze, but that isn’t going to stop the onslaught of press that will be trumpeting the “new all-time record low ice area/volume/whatever” which we clearly have set*.

“…This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions…”

He didn’t say we’d see a new record low, he said we’d be nearly ice free by the end of THIS summer.

Also, Al Gore (during his acceptance speech in 2007 for the Nobel) stated that “…Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years…”

That means if it doesn’t nearly disappear this summer, then surely it will be gone in 2014.

Not to be outdone, another group (in an article from Reuters on Aug 30, 2012 8:00am EDT) said:

“… Ice on the Arctic Ocean could vanish in summertime as early as 2015 or linger for many decades after a thaw to a record low this month that is widely blamed on climate change, according to scientists…”

So either this year, or in 2014 or 2015 or it may linger for many decades…

And you wonder why we question the conclusions of “arctic scientists”?

Which arctic scientist should we listen to, just in case the Arctic isn’t taking our calls?

The refreeze started within days of the August storms in the arctic. That appears to have broken up large floes which regrouped. Quite a lot of it got relocated, and wave action likely is keeping it under the radar, even still. I expect to see the rebound be steeper than the decline (which by the way does not show the affect of the big blow in August – WUWT?).

For some reason my computer never can quite download that picture from outer space. I appreciate your observations, because I can’t observe.

If someone could do a quick post on the difference between what our lieing eyes actually see, and what the cryosphere today multicolored map shows, the map-makers might need to do some explaining.

All thast would be needed is a close up of ice floating in an area they call “ice-free.”

I prefer using my own eyes these days. Call me distrustful. That is why I like the “north pole camera.” It is still showing solid ice, (with meltwater pools starting to freeze over,) though it has drifted nearly into Fram Straights. Unfortunately snow is stuck to the lens of Webcam #1 today, and the view of Webcam#2 is partially obscured. However if the daylight lasts and it moves fast enough, we may get a view of the actual “edge” of the ice, and compare where the camera says the edge is (before the camera sinks into the sea) with where cryosphere today says it is.

@ Green Sand “There was me thinking they were going along the coast to Russia? ”

Yes, that was my memory as well, so I looked it up to verify. Sure enough here is a map of their planned voyage to Russia. http://bluecloudspatial.com/arctic-row-map Of course this is far from the described “rowing across the Arctic Ocean.”

Based on the map, I would say that they rowed more like 800 miles out of 1300 planned. And yet their web site says “The team is happy to report that they completed their journey.”

No, not even maybe. Yes, they are finished, but no, they did not complete their journey. For pity’s sake, it is a deadly ocean — can’t they just man up and admit that they got their behinds kicked?!

Of course there are those that don’t recognise a noisy, hysteretic loop obviously driven by geography and zenith angle and claim to be able to predict an anomalous trend based on 30 odd plot points with huge error bars. Fine, carry on with the hand wringing. My lawn needs a trim.

No, put the mower away and get back in here. 8<)

Beautiful work. Now, from the DMI database of 80 north daily temperatures since 1958 (64 years of daily temperatures), plot the average summertime temperature (for each day that "model" average is above 0 deg C) time , and the (very small) std deviation for summertime days above the arctic ocean. Plot the rate-of-change for each day over the 64 years.

Now, my question is, why are day time Arctic temperatures above 80 north latitude – the only time of the year when the sun is actually shining – not increasing, if NASA-GISS is claiming the Arctic is now +5 deg C hotter than before?

My second question is, if actual measured Arctic temperatures in the air immediately above the Arctic Ocean in the only area of the Arctic where the sea ice actually is present (at minimum sea ice extent) are not increasing, then why do the CAGW extremists assume that ice melt is a symptom of supposed global warming? Air temperatures above the sea ice are demonstrably not increasing according to day-to-day measurements, so why is the ice melting?

Plot the average wintertime temperature (for every day for the days "off of the slope" of spring and fall). Plot the (very large) std deviation for each day, and the "slope" of that line over the 64 years of data. Are NASA-GISS/NSIDC able to use these wintertime temperatures to "force" a warmer yearly average because they "need" a warmer year-to-year average for their political purposes and continued funding from their government allies and controllers and agencies?

How much of these very, very large wintertime std deviations in daily temperatures coming from missing "M" (minus) sign errors in the records?

What can I say? The Arctic is warming and has been since the beginning of the twentieth century. Prior to that there was nothing there but two thousand years of slow, linear cooling. I pointed this out in my book “What Warming?” and again in a peer reviewed article in E&E 22(8):1069-1083 (2011). What got the warming started was a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the century that began to carry warm Gulf Stream water into the Arctic Ocean. There was no parallel increase of carbon dioxide when the warming started and this rules out the greenhouse effect because it would violate the radiation laws of physics. Direct measurement of water temperature reaching the Arctic in 2010 showed that it exceeds anything recorded for the last two thousand years. The warming was not steady but paused for thirty years in midcentury, then resumed, and is still going strong. This is another aspect of warming that is impossible to do with the greenhouse effect but easy if the previous flow pattern temporarily returned. What I can not understand is why all those so-called “climate” scientist are still clinging to the idea of anthropogenic warming in the Arctic after I proved that this is completely impossible.

The chart is built using a 25km grid cell.
You dont learn a lot by picking and choosing the metric you like.
That said, bottom melt has pretty much ended.
There appears to some weather coming that may cause some havoc.
Should be an interesting week.

“Now, my question is, why are day time Arctic temperatures above 80 north latitude – the only time of the year when the sun is actually shining – not increasing, if NASA-GISS is claiming the Arctic is now +5 deg C hotter than before? ”

Simple. There is ice north of 80N. Think about what happens if the air gets too much warmer than the melting point of ice..

A. Arnak.—Thank You, Sorry that I have not read your book, but I will. I have been wondering about this and a concurrent gain in sea ice in the SH for a long time. Without having looked closely at reasons why, it has seemed obvious that these are observations beckoning to be explained.

Climate models which simulate future Arctic sea ice extent show wide variations, but Met Office results suggest the area could be nearly ice-free in summer as early as 2030. Periods of accelerating ice loss are not unusual in climate models, but there is no reason to expect that to continue. Models do not suggest the current accelerated rate of decline would continue or that there was any ‘tipping point’ from which ice extent could not recover. This implies that we could still see periods of relatively small loss in summer sea ice in the future.

Since everyone trusts the UK Met Office for reliable predictions, you know that must be true.

I was reading stories about the Dark Knight Satellite which was supposedly detected in the 50’s and seen in the 60’s and has a Polar Orbit. Maybe some geek can communicate with it and get it to download all its Arctic Ice Data when the can find it again.

Seriously though Mother Nature is playing a ‘gotcha’ moment on all the warmists. She decided to create a new low so they can get into a lather and then end up with egg on face next year, while we sit back and say ‘so what’.

James Abbott says:
September 4, 2012 at 4:14 pm
———————————————————
I am very sympathetic to your comments. As a follower of WUWT I have noticed the redirection away from this amazingly low Arctic ice extent. Talk about Antarctica, talk about an end to the melting for this year – but ignore the record low extent.

However, I remain a skeptic that the Arctic ice is to disappear for the summer forever starting in 2013 because of CO2. So next year when we are nowhere near a record low, I look forward to James Abbott discussing why the dire predictions of no summer ice are not coming true.

Where I live, down in the SW desert of CA, flocks of birds have been heading SOUTH since early August. Not just a few, BIG flocks… We’ve already had two frontal systems come in across the coast of CA when normally at this time of year they’re still harassing those fools up in Seattle. Why all the flockign south so early this year? Don’t know…

What was the cause of the August storm, btw, and what happens if a storm like that happens to whip up after the daytime temp has dropped below the freezing mark once more.

I am still amazed that climate scientists are all lathered up over a fractional rise in temperature when they still cannot determine how the Northern Hemisphere becomes one giant snowball during an Ice Age. Of the two I am far more concerned with massive snowfalls and crop-killing hard freezes than I am of being three-tenths of a degree warmer than I was last year or the decade before.

“08/MARCH/2011. The switch of satellite source data at the start of 2009 introduced a discontinuity in the fields of sea ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic.

03/DECEMBER/2010. The SSM/I satellite that was used to provide the data for the sea ice analysis in HadISST suffered a significant degradation in performance through January and February 2009. The problem affected HadISST fields from January 2009 and probably causes an underestimate of ice extent and concentration. It also affected sea surface temperatures in sea ice areas because the SSTs are estimated from the sea ice concentration (see Rayner et al. 2003). As of 3rd December 2010 we have reprocessed the data from January 2009 to the present using a different sea ice data source. This is an improvement on the previous situation, but users should still note that the switch of data source at the start of 2009 might introduce a discontinuity into the record. The reprocessed files are available from the main data page. The older version of the data set is archived here.”

It appears that the MET data diverges from the other datasets below around 2009, when “SSM/I satellite that was used to provide the data for the sea ice analysis in HadISST suffered a significant degradation in performance through January and February 2009.”

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area Anomaly:

Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source

BTW-Why does the “Ice Area, NORSEX” chart show an average for “1979-2006″ and exclude 2007, 2008, and 2009? Because, if they included those three years in the 30 year average, said average would be far closer to the “dramatic, unprecedented” drop that those years represent. It just wouldn’t look “newsworthy”, now would it?

Second thought, during the run up to a solar maximum, as weak as it is, I would expect to see a more aggressive summer melt if total solar irradiance is a little higher at the right time. A little more sunlight and a little fewer clouds, and voila, instant record ice melt. Haven’t we also had a few CMEs slapping the atmosphere around in the last few months?

The rapid warming trend in the Arctic over the last 25 years has dramatically reduced the region’s sea ice extent. Comparing this more recent trend with long-term data, scientists are trying to determine to whether this 25-year warming trend will continue, or is part of a longer-term cycle of ups and downs. (Graph by Larry Stock and Josefino Comiso, NASA GSFC)

Yes, they’re talking about a “25-year warming trend” using a graph showing a 20 year warming trend.

Besides the displayed trends lacking the last 11+ years of temperature numbers, with whatever “data” went into the graph likely having been “cooked” (“adjusted”) into different numbers since it came out…

Isn’t that graph just another example of picking endpoints for trend lines to show basically whatever you want? Haven’t we been warned before about using shorter and shorter periods this way?

The sea ice may be low, but this year will not set any records globally. On all five of the data sets below, for their latest anomaly average, the 2012 average so far is close to that of 2011. If present trends continue, 2012 will be, for the most part, close to 2011, and a record is out of reach on all sets. My projection for the five sets below is that 2012 will come in 10th on 4 of the sets, but 5th on UAH.2012 in Perspective so far on Five Data Sets

2012 started off rather cold but has warmed up since then. So the present rank is not the most meaningful number. Therefore I will also give what the ranking would be assuming the latest month’s anomaly will continue for the rest of the year. I will also indicate what is required for the rest of the year in each case to set a new record.

Note the bolded numbers for each data set where the lower bolded number is the highest anomaly recorded so far in 2012 and the higher one is the all time record so far. There is no comparison.

With the UAH anomaly for July at 0.28, the average for the first seven months of the year is (-0.089 -0.111 + 0.111 + 0.299 + 0.289 + 0.369 + 0.28)/7 = 0.164. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 9th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.153 to rank it 9th for that year. On the other hand, if the rest of the year averaged the July value, which is more likely if the El Nino gets stronger, then 2012 would come in at 0.212 and it would rank 5th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.428. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in February and April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 0.80. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.

With the GISS anomaly for July at 0.47, the average for the first seven months of the year is (0.34 + 0.40 + 0.47 + 0.55 + 0.66 + 0.56 + 0.47)/7 = 0.493. This is about the same as in 2011 when it was 0.514 and ranked 9th for that year. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.88. If the July anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 0.82. Since this is close to the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.

With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for July at 0.477, the average for the first seven months of the year is (0.217 + 0.194 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.474 + 0.477 + 0.446)/7 = 0.371. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. This is slightly above the anomaly in 2011 which was at 0.34 to rank it 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. If the July anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 0.796. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.

With the sea surface anomaly for July at 0.386, the average for the first seven months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351 + 0.386)/7 = 0.292. This would rank it 11th compared to 2011 when it was 0.273 and ranked 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. If the July anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 0.67. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.

With the RSS anomaly for July at 0.292, the average for the first seven months of the year is (-0.058 -0.121 + 0.073 + 0.332 + 0.232 + 0.339 + 0.292)/7 = 0.156. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 12th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.147 to rank it 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. If the July anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 1.10. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.

Those dang goal posts will just keep shifting. If that ice doesn’t disappear this year… well, next year… No wait, the year after. 2015? What about 2020, anyone? How about 2025? By 2050 for sure.

It’s always out of reach, always after a few more years of funding, always the next generation will see it (or its lack). Shoot, if we all wait long enough and live long enough, we’ll watch the sun explode and that might just melt that nuisance ice once and for all.

You’d think as those goal posts shift like mirages forever into the distance, a few more warmists would wake up and become a touch skeptical themselves… Actually, I think many do.

Great article Dr. Ball. Those large yellow areas NATICE calls ‘marginal ice’ on Aug. 31 must be what I am seeing between the clouds north of the Chukchi Sea in the Sept. 3rd satellite photos linked in my comment above. Is it really at less than 15% concentration? Sure doesn’t appear to be that sparse at all in the photos.

I find your analysis interesting, but I do wonder why the global average rises and falls noticeably with the Northern Hemisphere seasons. Especially this year when the Southern Hemisphere has experienced:
– The coldest winter in 14 years in Australia
– Snow across all of South Africa (an extremely rare event)
– South America has experienced a colder and longer than normal winter

Would I be correct in saying that this shows a lack of monitoring in the Southern Hemisphere? Or a case of the warmists trying to hide the decline?

it seems that current Arctic Temperatures are the same or less than they were in the 1930s, and the rise from 1920 – 1935 seems as steep, if not steeper, than anything we’ve seen in the last several decades.

Nobody would suggest that you should. And nobody who understands Global warming would suggest that the ice WAS a proxy for global temperature.

Now, some people may suggest that Frost fairs in England are a good proxy for global temperatures.. Some people may suggest that Grapes growing on one place are a good global proxy.. but nobody would understands AGW would suggest that ‘ice is a good proxy for global temps.

What metric would you use? area? extent? volume?

It’s pretty simple guys. In a warming world we expect less ice floating in the warmer water.
Like duh. And looking a the fluxes into the arctic basin.. well go figure increase the heat flux into that region and the damn ice melts! rocket science!

Of course its not that simple every place on the globe because the system is pretty complex.
heat moves one place.. means…you will, you must find other places with the opposite effects.. over short times at least.

It does not take a BELIEF in AGW to note the obvious. If you put more heat into the arctic you will get less ice. Sometimes denying the obvious makes you look unscientific

Steven Mosher;
It does not take a BELIEF in AGW to note the obvious. If you put more heat into the arctic you will get less ice. Sometimes denying the obvious makes you look unscientific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think that’s an unfair comment Mosh. Most commenters seem to be of the view that the importance of the current low ice area is being over stated by alarmists and others are pointing out that much of the low may be due to unusual storm activity. Both are reasonable comments in my view.

But as you yourself state, it is a system, and a complicated one with many feedbacks. In this case, we’re talking a monster feedback. Water exposed to air emitts a lot more energy to space than does ice. It absorbs a lot less energy from insolation than one would suppose also, because angle of incidence is quite low for most of the day, resulting in a lot of insolation being reflected back out to space, as much or more than would have been by ice. That has consequences that I don’t think we’re even close to knowing how to quantify.

Can we expect that when ice starts to recover in the next few weeks that it will recover more rapidly because the water beneath it is colder than it otherwise would have been? Will the colder water wind up dropping temperatures in lower latitudes as it is recirculated back toward the tropics by existing undersea currents? Will the currents themselves be modified in strength and path due to the change in temperature gradient? I think these are the more interesting questions.

The average skeptic accepts that the world had been warming for 400 years and that this must translate into less ice at some point. We just don’t consider it remarkable. The only remarkable thing about it is the attention it gets from the MSM and alarmists. If they didn’t shout it from the rooftops as evidence of their belief system, then I doubt we would remark on it in any great detail either.

I agree, but the question is how much of the decrease in Global Sea Ice do you think is attributable to the ~.44 degree C increase in “Global Temperature” during the last several decades versus the multitude of other factors involved?

It does not take a BELIEF in AGW to note the obvious. If you put more heat into the arctic you will get less ice. Sometimes denying the obvious makes you look unscientific

I am not sure what this means, i.e. who is “denying the obvious”? I see this as similar to AGW in the sense that AGW likely exists, but there is significant question as to how much of the ~.44 degree C increase in “Global Temperature” during the last several decades is due to AGW. Similarly, some portion of the decrease in Global Sea Ice is likely attributable to the ~.44 degree C increace in “Global Temperature” during the last several decades, but some portion is likely due to the multitude of other factors involved. Until we have reasonably accurate estimates of the portions attributable, Sea Ice seems more like a distraction to keep people scared while “Global Temperature” goes nowhere fast…

Ammonite;
The arctic is telling us all something very important, if we will just listen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This quote just made me laugh. This is science? We “listen to the arctic.”…..

Steven Mosher:It’s pretty simple guys. In a warming world we expect less ice floating in the warmer water.
Like duh. And looking a the fluxes into the arctic basin.. well go figure increase the heat flux into that region and the damn ice melts! rocket science!

IS anyone debating whether the arctic is warmer today then say 30 years ago? This is not rocket science as you say.

You must have missed the fact that we sceptics were already told above like I showed you “that the arctic is telling us something very important if we will just listen.” Its right there…..I don’t make this stuff up, and something like that makes me think that lots of warmists really do believe that “Arctic sea ice extent” is a good proxy for temperature. Talk to them and tell them its not first. No idea why you are harping on sceptics for being unscientific first and foremost.

I agree, but the question is how much of the decrease in Global Sea Ice do you think is attributable to the ~.44 degree C increase in “Global Temperature” during the last several decades versus the multitude of other factors involved?

#########
That is a silly question. the arctic doesnt respond to the GLOBAL temperature. That is an average.
A mathematical entity that has no real physical meaning.

“attributing” a portion to the global average makes no sense because the global average is not a physical entity. no average exists as a physical entity. An average is a mathematical “model” that gives you a very low order estimate or understanding of a complex system.

If you want to start to break it down you;d start by reading the papers that cover the various heat fluxes into the basin.

“Until we have reasonably accurate estimates of the portions attributable, Sea Ice seems more like a distraction to keep people scared while “Global Temperature” goes nowhere fast…”

You hardly need a reasonably accurate estimate of what portion is attributable to AGW.
You can of course find recent modelling work that attributes 70% of the loss to AGW.
you could, absent any information, attribute 50% of it to AGW. absent any information
about the true value ( 0-100%) the estimate that minimizes the error is 50%. the point being
Nothing turns on having or not having a “reasonable accurate” estimate of the portion.
For the sake of argument I could say 90% of the observed loss is due to ‘other factors”
whatever they are. The point would still be the same. In a warmer world we expect less ice floating in the water. It’s silly to argue otherwise, its silly to suggest, when you dont know, that other factors
explain the loss. However one sorts out the final “apportionment” the fact remains.
Adding GHGs will warm the planet. Ask Lindzen, if you dont like hearing that from me.
in a warmer world you can expect less floating ice in water. Poor your self a drink and figure that shit out.

Sorry, Mosher, but who cares? Climate has never been static and no one should want it to be. I see no problem with an ice free arctic. The planet is warming (or was up until recently). A warmer world is better for plants and animals alike – including people, we belong here too.

Unfortunately, the signs I’m seeing point to the opposite gearing up to happen, a colder more dangerous world. But I guess you don’t see that, being solely focussed the other way. That’s a shame. Somehow, though, I suspect the Big Chill will be blamed on global warming – it’s amazing how the alarmists can twist the tale and use absolutely anything to back their claims and demand more power and more money, blaming people and civilization all the way.

When you look at the “satellite” photos, one from Cryosphere and the other from NSIDC, why does the NSIDC always seem to have much more snow on the ground than the Cryosphere ones? There really isn’t much more than a day between them, so I don’t think it is just the slightly different times. Is there some filtering taking place on the Cryosphere images?

The good thing is that we wont get another record low Arctic sea ice extent for another four or five years (the record low before this new record low was 5 years ago), this means that every year before the next record low we will be able to tell those AGW believers that the ice is not melting, yay for us!

I spent the time to read all the comments and found them unconvincing as a statistician. The aguments based on averages and trends mean nothing against a complex system made of multiple cycles most of which (at least their interactions) we do not understand yet.
In some areas there is indeed some warming but in others we can clearly see some cooling. (South hemisphere this winter) The variability also seems to be increasing with cooler winters and warmer summers as well as more violent swings in the spring and autumn. Is this the sign of a warming or cooling earth? I would personaly err on the side of cooling. Long term statistics tell us that a cooling period is overdue. Now, does the huge amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere has the relatively slow, gradual effect people expect? I am doubtful. I expect the effect will come at some stage and it will be violent and maybe not even a warming effect. The risk is that the atmosphere has “modes” of functionment that we do not understand because we haven’t experienced them yet. (We only see their effects in ice and sediments but without knowing exactly what happened.) I have seen an increadibly wet summer last year in the desert in Australia and conversely a very hot and dry summer this year in the Midwest in the US. We also can notice huge polar blasts in the spring in mid latitudes almost everywhere for the last 2 or 3 years. This is new. Is it significant? Hard to say but something seems to be happening. People working in the airline industry are well aware that the jetstreams are not always where they are suppose to be with unfortunate consequences (Less confort for the passengers and more costs for the companies.) But just looking at ice cover or Hurricanes may not tell us much. Here in Japan, we haven’t seen many hurricanes yet this year; they all went to China! This has probably no meaning whatsoever, or maybe the gods…

Venter, the antarctic is a lot colder than the arctic, and that makes a difference to how it responds to warming. Imagine you have an ice block at a temperature of -50C. Add a little warm water to it, and the volume of ice will increase, because some of the water will freeze. Now do the same with an ice block at 0C. You’ll end up with less ice, because some of the ice will melt.

Venter, as everyone should realise, the Antarctic is a very diffferent place. The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land, the Antarctic is a continent surrounded by ocean. The Antartcic is much colder and drier. The increase in sea ice there (much less than the decrease in the Arctic) is dominated by increased snowfall. All well understood.

Lots of straw-grasping here. But contrary to pretty much all the predictions made by WUWT regulars in the past, and consistent with pretty much all the predictions made by real Arctic scientists (though much faster than many of them thought), arctic sea ice is going down.
* The annual minimum is going down.
* The annual mean is going down.
* The annual maximum is going down.
* The daily anomaly is going down.
* The extent, area and volume measured by different teams are all going down.
And,
* Arctic temperatures are rising.
* Arctic land ice is melting.
* Arctic permafrost is thawing.
* Arctic shores are eroding.
* Arctic ecosystems are on the move.
Now, there are ways to graph each of these facts if you need to hide them, some ways are explored on this thread. There are ways to deny that each data sets can be right. But climate changing now in the arctic is quite real, for anyone who looks.

So … Look somewhere else! There, the antarctic! That’s grasping a different straw. Like a patient told by his doctor that his left foot is falling off, and then answering heatedly “You’re cherry-picking the bad news, my right foot still looks fine!”

“James Abbott says:
September 4, 2012 at 4:14 pm
———————————————————
I am very sympathetic to your comments. As a follower of WUWT I have noticed the redirection away from this amazingly low Arctic ice extent. Talk about Antarctica, talk about an end to the melting for this year – but ignore the record low extent.

However, I remain a skeptic that the Arctic ice is to disappear for the summer forever starting in 2013 because of CO2. So next year when we are nowhere near a record low, I look forward to James Abbott discussing why the dire predictions of no summer ice are not coming true.”

I would be very happy to discuss the situation in the arctic next year whether it is another record or not. And actually if you look at my post I made no mention of another record next year. What I said was that on the current trend we could be looking at a largely ice free arctic in September before the end of this decade.

But if that does not happen, then fine. The point is that the science must be based on the evidence and not wishful thinking (Smokey). I am not hoping for an ice free arctic, but just like lots of others, observing thats where we look to be heading.

But that does not mean that an ice free arctic is not a serious matter. The UK Met Office is looking at what the implications could be for weather patterns in the northern hemisphere precisely because changes are expected but uncertain as this is a situation not seen in the period of instrument records – and the UK holds some of the longest series of met data.

This thread has several comments ducking out of the seriousness of an ice free arctic by claiming its all part of a a natural ice cycle or part of a steady warming trend over several centuries.

Well no, the evidence does not support those claims.

The evidence says that until the late 1990s, the minimum ice anomaly was becoming more negative, but fairly steadily and pretty much on a linear trajectory. Then in the early 2000s we saw a much morer rapid decline setting in:

We do not have accurate ice records going as far back as the temperature records, but the proxy records (NSIDC) show that the current melts have not been seen for several centuries at least. Its not helpful to try to confuse by comparing (interpreted) ice conditions many thousands of years ago to the current period of human influence on the climate of a few hundred years.

The temperature record shows that whilst there was C20th warming, it was modest until the 1980s and then much more rapid warming started:

shows about 0.3C warming in the century to 1980, then over 0.5C in the next 30 years.

So the “natural cycles” and “steady natural warming ” theory needs to explain the observed acceleration in change before it is credible.

Far more credible is that human induced climate change mainly due to CO2 is the primary reason for the observed changes (as anticipated in science papers as far back as the 1960s/1970s) and that whilst natural cycles of course exist, these cannot explain what is being observed in the arctic.

That is a silly question. the arctic doesnt respond to the GLOBAL temperature. That is an average.

That’s a silly answer, I didn’t say anything about the Arctic, my question as written was, “how much of the decrease in Global Sea Ice do you think is attributable to the ~.44 degree C increase in “Global Temperature” during the last several decades versus the multitude of other factors involved?”

@- Philip Bradley says
“So why is Antarctic sea ice increasing?
By your logic, it follows the world isn’t warming and the seas aren’t getting warmer.
You have to explain all the data. Just ignoring some of it, because you can’t explain it isn’t science.”

The Arctic and Antarctic are opposites. The Arctic an ocean surrounded by land, the Antarctic land surrounded by ocean. The result is that in the Arctic the summer melt is significant but in the Antarctic the sea ice can melt back to the edge of the Antarctic continent, but can decrease no further.
However the land ice on the Antarctic ice-cap IS shrinking as shown by direct observation and GRACE satellite data.

So at BOTH poles the ice-caps are shrinking and at both poles summer sea ice is at or near the minimum that it could possibly reach.

Winter ice in both regions may vary, but is dependent on salinity, snowfall and currents as much as temperature so provides no clear guide to warming alone.

However the large summer reduction in ice both sea and land based at both poles confirms the significant addition of energy to the climate system.
For those that think it is a distant irrelevency, consider that the low Arctic summer ice triggers instabilities in the N.H. Jet stream that leads to increased winter snowfalls and increased summer droughts for many parts of the N.H. While other parts may see increased storms and flooding. It is changes in the Arctic that puts the local weather on steroids.

Lots of straw-grasping here. But contrary to pretty much all the predictions made by WUWT regulars in the past, and consistent with pretty much all the predictions made by real Arctic scientists (though much faster than many of them thought), arctic sea ice is going down.
* The annual minimum is going down.
* The annual mean is going down.
* The annual maximum is going down.

Per the graph below, why do you think that the annual Minimum is going down so much faster than the annual Mean and Maximum?

“Far more credible is that human induced climate change mainly due to CO2 is the primary reason for the observed changes (as anticipated in science papers as far back as the 1960s/1970s) and that whilst natural cycles of course exist, these cannot explain what is being observed in the arctic.”

You are as crazy as Gneiss. Well, almost. Both of you suffer from confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. Natural cycles fully explain all current observations, without the need for a magic molecule that knows the North Pole from the South Pole.

The Arctic is a region. Globally, temperatures are not rising. [That incredible GISS chart is a masterpiece of alarmist propaganda — and as debunked as Mann’s hokey stick chart.] And the Antarctic, with more than ten time the ice of the Arctic, is still growing.

Once you admit that the Arctic regionfluctuates, maybe the scales will fall from your eyes, and you will see the truth: nothing unusual or unnatural is occurring. So relax, and worry about something real for a change.

“Until we have reasonably accurate estimates of the portions attributable, Sea Ice seems more like a distraction to keep people scared while “Global Temperature” goes nowhere fast…”

You hardly need a reasonably accurate estimate of what portion is attributable to AGW.
You can of course find recent modelling work that attributes 70% of the loss to AGW.
you could, absent any information, attribute 50% of it to AGW. absent any information
about the true value ( 0-100%) the estimate that minimizes the error is 50%. the point being
Nothing turns on having or not having a “reasonable accurate” estimate of the portion.
For the sake of argument I could say 90% of the observed loss is due to ‘other factors”
whatever they are. The point would still be the same.

No, the point would be completely different. If AGW is only responsible for 50% the warming and 90% of the observed Sea Ice loss is due to “other factors”, then we can all stop wasting our time arguing about minor variations in Earth’s Climate System and do more productive things with our lives…

In a warmer world we expect less ice floating in the water. It’s silly to argue otherwise, its silly to suggest, when you dont know, that other factors explain the loss.

What do you mean that I “don’t know, that other factors explain the loss”?

Adding GHGs will warm the planet. Ask Lindzen, if you dont like hearing that from me.
in a warmer world you can expect less floating ice in water.

I agreed with this yesterday, and in thinking back over every comment and article I’ve ever written, I don’t believe I’ve ever disagree that GHGs warm the planet and that one would expect less Sea Ice in a warming world. This has always been a argument over attribution and magnitude.

Dale says:
September 4, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Would I be correct in saying that this shows a lack of monitoring in the Southern Hemisphere? Or a case of the warmists trying to hide the decline?

As for why the “global average rises and falls noticeably with the Northern Hemisphere seasons”, my understanding is that it is due to the huge amount of land in the Northern Hemisphere that greatly absorbs the sun’s heat in the summer, despite the fact that the sun is furthest away around July 4. But as for “when the Southern Hemisphere has experienced:
– The coldest winter in 14 years in Australia”, I have no clue about that. However I believe we can rule out a lack of monitoring since the satellite data show the Southern Hemisphere only warming at a rate of 0.08/decade over the last 32 years but the Northern Hemisphere at a rate of 0.19/decade. See

Per the graph below, why do you think that the annual Minimum is going down so much faster than the annual Mean and Maximum?

———————

The maximum is more stable than the miniumum because once the Sun sinks in the winter pretty much the whole region freezes over, and will continue to do so for some time yet. However, each year the ice is thinner, which is not captured by the extent figure, and so the melt in the Spring is more severe. Though, of course, weather and other natural variabilities, ensure it is not a straight line. (And the mean, of course, is just half way betwwen the two.)

OK – give us the references for papers that can do this for the modern era ie instrument record period. Not anecodotes or wishful thinking, but peer reviewed science.

And

David Ball

you said

“James Abbott says:
September 5, 2012 at 7:07 am
“I am very sympathetic to your comments. As a follower of WUWT I have noticed the redirection away from this amazingly low Arctic ice extent.”
You start with a blatant lie, and then continue in that vein.”

You clearly have not been following the thread. The first bit in quotes was from Steve from Rockwood, not me.

Secondly you claim that what I did write to follow was a “blatant lie”.

You do not understand the concept of the null hypothesis, yet you insist on assigning me homework? First, get up to speed on the subject. The null hypothesis has never been falsified, and it shows conclusively that what is being observed right now is well within past climate parameters.

Therefore, the default scientific position is that current observations are fully explained by natural variability. There is no ned to introduce the magic CO2 molecule to explain anything, as William of Ockham would tell you.

The planet has been warming at the same rate since the LIA. It warmed at that rate when CO2 was 280 ppmv, and at the same rate when CO2 was 390 ppmv. Therefore, CO2 has no measurable effect on global warming, and thus can be entirely disregarded. Any effect from CO2 is minuscule, and most of the rise is due to ocean outgasing. As we know, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature, on all time scales. Effect only precedes cause inside the deluded minds of CO2=CAGW believers.

Sorry to prick the anti-science bubble you’re in, but your arguments are based entirely on beliefs, not on scientific measurements. Nothing unprecedented is happening regarding Arctic ice. It has all happened before, repeatedly. But you believe that this time it’s different. I can’t help you there, your belief trumps logic.

The problem is that distribution counts. It’s quite possible to have a warmer world where the antarctic and arctic become colder, and it’s also possible to have a colder world where the antarctic and arctic become warmer. That doesn’t even address the topic of ocean warmth versus atmospheric warmth.

Maybe a better way of putting would be, “in a world with warmer poles, you can expect less floating ice in water.”

Henry Clark says:
September 4, 2012 at 1:38 pmIn annual averages, less misleading than single months, a turning point was how, from 2007 to the last full year of data (2011), arctic ice extent has been increasing, as seen athttp://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo .

This figure sure is an eye-opener, no wonder the UK met office hurriedly took it down.

The final part since 2007 is notable for the sharp increase in summer to winter variation. This is at an all time high (over instrumental record period). I see little discussion of this variation, it should be very significant.

You do not understand the concept of the null hypothesis, yet you insist on assigning me homework? First, get up to speed on the subject. The null hypothesis has never been falsified, and it shows conclusively that what is being observed right now is well within past climate parameters.

What is this falsifiable null hypothesis you refer to, details please?

Therefore, the default scientific position is that current observations are fully explained by natural variability. There is no ned to introduce the magic CO2 molecule to explain anything, as William of Ockham would tell you.

Really? Despite the summer Arctic insolation falling over the last 10,000 years we are returning to the Arctic conditions that pertained then. So Ockham would say “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem” (entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity), but in this case insolation is not sufficient so it is necessary to introduce another ‘entity’. Newton’s version: “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances”, leads to the same conclusion. So Ockham disagrees with you.

So there we have it – you cannot produce any references to papers covering the modern era to back your assertion that its all natural variability and you continue to reply on your favoured null hypothesis, which provides nil support for your claims.

You then completely ignore the evidence that I produced in my post that clearly demonstrated that your claim

“The planet has been warming at the same rate since the LIA. It warmed at that rate when CO2 was 280 ppmv, and at the same rate when CO2 was 390 ppmv. ”

Is completely untrue. The evidence shows that the planet has warmed much faster in the last 30 years than the previous century.

You then claim that what I have written is

“based entirely on beliefs, not on scientific measurements”

when what I stated was based on measurements taken by scientists and published by scientific institutions (I would obviously not try do to otherwise as I don’t live in the arctic and have never taken any of my own measurements there).

But you also, incredibly, seek to undermine one of the most fundamental findings in atmospheric physics, namely that the Earth’s climate is warmed by greenhouse gases, a finding first put forward nearly 200 years ago. Without the natural greenhouse effect the Earth’s mean surface temperature would be about 21C lower than it is (Houghton).

You say that the warming due to CO2 is “minuscule” and so therefore deny its importance in keeping the planet naturally warm.

If it is “minuscule”, perhaps you can tell us what the mean surface temperature of the Earth would be if CO2 were not present in the atmosphere ? Presumably you believe it would be little different to now ?

phlogiston says:
September 5, 2012 at 9:27 am
The final part since 2007 is notable for the sharp increase in summer to winter variation. This is at an all time high (over instrumental record period). I see little discussion of this variation, it should be very significant.
Indeed, as can be seen below it’s largely due to the summer sea-ice falling to levels more than 1Gm^2 below previous summertime levels but returning in winter to levels about 0.5 Gm^2 below previous. This year we have so far dropped to an anomaly of -2.417 Gm^2 from -0.397 Gm^2 at maximum area (13.68-2.37), so while the minimum area is dropping so is the maximum but not as fast, thus the annual range is growing. While the refreeze is able to almost replace the missing ice area each year, it’s not able to replace the missing thicker, multiyear ice so each summer the ice is more vulnerable.
It used to be that first year ice would survive its circuit of the gyre and become progressively older and thicker, that doesn’t happen to the extent that it did.

Smokey says:
September 5, 2012 at 7:36 am
And the Antarctic, with more than ten time the ice of the Arctic, is still growing.

To support this you link to a graph of sea-ice, however Antarctic sea-ice varies from ~2 to ~15 Gm ^2 while the Arctic varies from ~2 to ~14 Gm^2 (this year). Another misleading statement by Smokey, in addition Antarctic sea-ice is not “still growing”.

The maximum is more stable than the miniumum because once the Sun sinks in the winter pretty much the whole region freezes over, and will continue to do so for some time yet.

What? “The whole region freezes over”? In a warming world sea ice should form slower and melt faster around the periphery, resulting in decreased extent and area throughout the year. Given that ice is thinnest around the periphery, one would expect the effects of increased atmospheric temperatures to be greatest there.

However, each year the ice is thinner, which is not captured by the extent figure, and so the melt in the Spring is more severe. Though, of course, weather and other natural variabilities, ensure it is not a straight line.

James Abbott said on September 5, 2012 at 7:07 am
“Far more credible is that human induced climate change mainly due to CO2 is the primary reason for the observed changes (as anticipated in science papers as far back as the 1960s/1970s) and that whilst natural cycles of course exist, these cannot explain what is being observed in the arctic.”
———————————-

Nice try, but no cigar.
Credible ? in what way ? You just made a bald statement of belief with no attempt at substantiation. Perhaps you’d like to explain the mechanism by which co2 has induced climate change (global warming) and how that translates into reduced ice cover. The air temperatures in the Arctic during the summer are not sufficient to melt the ice from above and a warmer atmosphere cannot directly transfer it’s heat to the ocean. So how do you think it works ? Put forth your theory and post some links.

You obviously haven’t been reading WUWT for very long otherwise you wouldn’t still be trotting out religious unsubstantiated statements.

For what it’s worth neither you, the Guardian, The New Scientist nor the Met Office need worry about or celebrate the reduced ice cover in the Arctic for very long, for unless the Sun makes a remarkable recovery, and soon, I believe in the coming years that you’ll be posting that mankind’s trivial contribution to co2 has caused a dramatic and worrying expansion of World ice.

James Abbott said on September 5, 2012 at 9:39 am
“If it is “minuscule”, perhaps you can tell us what the mean surface temperature of the Earth would be if CO2 were not present in the atmosphere ? Presumably you believe it would be little different to now ?”
—————————–
Correct. It would be at most about one degree C cooler. This of course presumes that co2 has any heating effect at all. Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas, 7 times more effective and vastly greater.

There are however some other interesting theories which are being fleshed out by physicists and mathematicians, that involve nothing more than the existence of atmospheric pressure. I only mention that to broaden (or blow) your mind. If you like, I will find some links, there has been plenty of discussion and mathematics on this subject on Tallbloke’s blog, and also on WUWT.

James Abbott said September 5, 2012 at 7:07 am
So the “natural cycles” and “steady natural warming ” theory needs to explain the observed acceleration in change before it is credible.
——————————
Nope.

You make the assumption that temperatures were a straight horizontal line prior to the recent warming seen in the latter part of the century. You ignore the earlier warming period where co2 remained essentially flat, and you ignored all previous temperature ups and downs, some of them dramatic indeed where co2 could not possibly have played a role. Many with warming (and cooling) gradients every bit as steep and steeper.

It is for you to firstly show that those previous temperature gradients are not at play here, until you have done that you cannot make a credible argument for co2 as being of any relevance to warming over the latter part of the century, since co2 has never been shown to be relevant to historic temperature fluctuations. The onus of proof is on you not Smokey.

Global temperatures have been declining for the last 15 years and God has turned down the dimmer control on the Sun. You need to chill out, that ice is going to come back with a vengeance as per the Little Ice Age. So Julienne and Walt live in interesting times for sure.

A while ago I asked you the following, in response to your Arctic/CO2 comment:

Are you arguing that human CO2 emissions are the cause of the current Arctic ice decline? If so, post your evidence, per the scientific method: testable, quantifiable scientific evidence, directly attributable to human CO2 emissions.

Otherwise, the default position must be natural Arctic ice variability, which has happened repeatedly during the Holocene, is happening. That is the null hypothesis. Arctic ice melt has occurred at other times in the 20th Century [in the 1920’s and the 1980’s], and is documented in Royal Navy observations in the 1800′s. The same cycle has happened throughout the Holocene. Why would the current cycle be anything but natural?

Post your evidence of human causation, if you have any.

You never answered the question or posted any evidence. That is because you have no direct evidence, per the scientific method, connecting human CO2 emissions with Arctic ice melt. And without any scientific evidence, all you have is belief.

J. M. Careful here. I have seen estimates regarding a no CO2 atmosphere from many credible scientists who are very skeptical of much warming by additional CO2. The estimates have been between 8 and about 20 Deg C.
A hundred years ago, in lab investigations it was determined that adding CO2 would not cause much warming (at one time there was thought it might cause some cooling) because almost all the IR frequencies that CO2 can absorb are being absorbed. Curiously, it was several German scientists about the time of WW11 that change our atomic model, and with it came quantum mechanics. Energy that is absorbed is remitted in all directions; up down, sideways and this happens in each molecule millions of times in a second. GHG is really a misnomer. It should be called the Tyndall gas effect. Greenhouses, or you car, warm because they prevent convection, those who believe there is positive feedback believe there will be changes in water vapor content at certain altitudes. This happens because of convection. However, the models showing this have been inaccurate.
An analogy might be putting on a coat to keep you worm. Each additional coat you put on warms you less.
IMO additional CO2 will cause progressively less warming, In fact so little that we will never be quite sure of how much, It such seems foolish to try spend money to limit a fundamental requirement of life.

My “talking points” do not change because they are are factual.
Since many of them are shown to be mis-statements of your sources: for example your attempt to pass off a photo from John Daly’s site as mid-winter ice when in fact it was a generic photo of sea ice taken in September, also your representation of a graph as showing Holocene temperatures to be greater than today’s when it did not extend more recently than 165 years ago, your points are demonstrably not factual!

And I take pride in the weak and baseless criticism coming from someone with her snout firmly planted in the public trough.

And in being rude apparently, while maintaining your anonymity behind a pseudonym.

The temperature record shows that whilst there was C20th warming, it was modest until the 1980s and then much more rapid warming started:

shows about 0.3C warming in the century to 1980, then over 0.5C in the next 30 years.

Actually, what that temp record shows is about 0.5C warming in the century to 1940, and a similar amount from 1980 to present.

So the “natural cycles” and “steady natural warming ” theory needs to explain the observed acceleration in change before it is credible.

There is no change in acceleration.

Further, any credible complaint against the credibility of a theory of “natural cycles” or “steady natural warming” would need to rely on a period substantially longer than one century. “Nature” did not begin in 1900, any more than arctic ice began in the 1970s.

A while ago I asked you the following, in response to your Arctic/CO2 comment:

Are you arguing that human CO2 emissions are the cause of the current Arctic ice decline? If so, post your evidence, per the scientific method: testable, quantifiable scientific evidence, directly attributable to human CO2 emissions.

Otherwise, the default position must be natural Arctic ice variability, which has happened repeatedly during the Holocene, is happening. That is the null hypothesis. Arctic ice melt has occurred at other times in the 20th Century [in the 1920’s and the 1980’s], and is documented in Royal Navy observations in the 1800′s. The same cycle has happened throughout the Holocene. Why would the current cycle be anything but natural?
Post your evidence of human causation, if you have any.

You never answered the question or posted any evidence. That is because you have no direct evidence, per the scientific method, connecting human CO2 emissions with Arctic ice melt. And without any scientific evidence, all you have is belief.

And you posted no evidence to support your assertions upon which your question is based, not surprising really since they aren’t true. Using your logic we assume that you have no evidence to support your views. Start providing such evidence and maybe your questions will be taken seriously.

“The past natural warming events reported by Mulvaney et al. are similar in amplitude and duration to the present global warming signal, and yet the past warmings occurred before the industrial revolution and therefore were not caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The present global warming cycle lies within the range of these past natural warming cycles, suggesting that the present global warming cycle may be of natural origin and not caused by human activity–as climate skeptics have been arguing for some time.”

The Arctic and Antarctic are opposites. The Arctic an ocean surrounded by land, the Antarctic land surrounded by ocean. The result is that in the Arctic the summer melt is significant but in the Antarctic the sea ice can melt back to the edge of the Antarctic continent, but can decrease no further.
However the land ice on the Antarctic ice-cap IS shrinking as shown by direct observation and GRACE satellite data.

You present no physical mechanism, and this is just a psuedo-argument.

FYI, the mechanism I described above also accounts for Antarctic Peninsula melt and Greenland melt as well.

The melt of the Larson icesheets on the Antarctic Peninsula is interesting because Larsen B and C are surrounded by permanent sea ice that hasn’t melted.

How come the much thicker icesheet melts, when the thinner sea ice doesn’t?

The answer is that the icesheet, having originated on land, contains substantial embedded material (rock particles) which act like the embedded black carbon in Arctic sea ice. accumulating at the surface and decreasing the albedo, as solar insolation melts/sublimates the ice surface.

People are forgetting so quickly, that the satellite which made the sea ice measurements, over at “cryosphere today” had damaged it’s sensor and the satellite was replaced, so the instrument measurements for this year are from a different satellite and instrument. So then the new instrument has a difficulty in seeing ice cover which is fragmented, whereas the old sensor did not.

The result is all this wittering about whether the ice is in terminal decline or not, but it is an exaggerated “anomaly”. Furthermore when the “pendulum swings” more strongly in one direction, experience shows that it shall also swing more strongly in the opposite direction. Accordingly it is predicted that the forthcoming Winter will show a corresponding increase in Arctic sea ice.

Kevin Trenberth wrote that “the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.” Trenberth understands the null hypothesis. Maybe Phil can call him and ask for an explanation, because I’ve explained it often enough.

And Prof Richard Lindzen points out that natural variability fully explains the current state of affairs: “For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.”

And as Dr Roy Spencer notes, ‘no one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.’

The null hypothesis is easily testable: simply show that temperatures have accelerated above their long term parameters. The fact that they have not means the null hypothesis remains un-falsified. In fact, temperatures are decelerating.

Werner Brozek,

If Abbott can cherry-pick the past 30 years, then I can cherry-pick the past 15 years. ☺

The planet has been warming NATURALLYsince the LIA, no matter if CO2 levels were low or high. There is no scientific evidence showing that human CO2 emissions have had any measureable effect. With no supporting evidence, the alarmist crowd is left with only one thing: their belief. But belief is not sufficient cause to spend $trillions, or $billions… or even $thousands.

What we need is scientific evidence showing that human CO2 emissions are the cause of melting ice, global warming, or anything else. But so far, there is no evidence. There is only belief.

(1). That co2 causes warming.
(2). That co2 causes neither warming nor cooling.
(3). That co2 causes cooling.
(4). That co2 causes both warming and cooling.
——————————————————————
(1) Considered by many to be well established, though not all.

(2) Is suggested by the incoherent ups and downs of previous temperatures and co2 levels.

(3) (a). The Pacific hot spot that turns out to be a cold spot. (b). The current rate of warming being less than previous warming events and therefore being held back by increasing levels of co2. (c). The cessation and ringing (like an electrical square wave) seen when exiting a glaciation, temperatures climb rapidly with co2 following, so if co2 caused warming then temperatures would not stop rising, but they do stop and a logical conclusion could be drawn that co2 causes cooling and brings the warming to a halt, we see some variation afterwards (ringing), before we meet the rear slope of the interstitial (temperature square wave).

(4) OK I can’t think how this last one might work, though perhaps different functions at different atmospheric heights.

At this time I consider;
(1) to be minor at best, and most probably unlikely, and in either event of no effective relevance to mankind, food supply or future temperatures.
I remain open minded about the other 3 and look forward to hearing many well argued cases for and against.

But in item (3) I wonder if the co2 that the warming pulls from the oceans on the way out of glaciation then pulls back the warming.

So we get a warming spike which increases co2, but co2 could have a cooling effect, thus causing the warming event to stabilise and level off and then temperatures are dragged back down by the co2 into a glaciation.

Yes the record of glaciations clearly show that warming causes co2 to increase.

Over the years posters at WUWT have made multiple predictions of recovery……
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Over the years Warmists and worried alarmists have made multiple predictions of an ice-free Arctic for the following years:
1989, 2000, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2035, 2040
====================================================================
Jimbo, I think you misunderstood. The predictions have been for “next” year or, sometimes, in the “next” five years or in the “next” decade, etc.
Again I’m reminded of the sign I saw painted on the side of a seafood restaurant, “Free Crabs Tomorrow!”.

@Smokey: The mental model that seems to fit best for me is that of a buffer solution. In the same way that a buffer solution will neutralize both acids and bases, it seems that oceanic CO2 is probably buffering the levels in the atmosphere. Increased CO2 emissions by humans are buffered by the ocean absorbing more CO2. Similarly, if there were a *decrease* in CO2 emissions by humans, they’d be buffered by the ocean emitting more CO2. The set point of atmospheric CO2 levels buffered by the oceans is determined by ocean temperature (i.e., warming causes CO2).

If one doesn’t understand the concept of a buffer solution, I can see how one could get wrapped around the axle, imagining that it’s an elementary mathematics problem of putting soil into a hole, or taking soil out of a hole.

According to Smokey:Smokey says:
September 5, 2012 at 1:09 pm
The only scientific evidence shows thart CO2 is a function of temperature, not vice-versa. Warmer temperatures cause CO2 to outgas from the oceans, like CO2 outgases from a warming Coke.
And he also says:Smokey says:
September 5, 2012 at 12:47 pm
In fact, temperatures are decelerating.

And yet the CO2 levels are not decelerating, care to explain that Smokey?

In any case, there is nothing to worry about. The entire “carbon” argument is predicated on tyhe assumption that CO2 is easy to tax. And it is. But there is no scientific evidence to support the belief in CO2 as the cause of Arctic ice melt or runaway global warming. It is a complete alarmist scam.

benfrommo says:
September 4, 2012 at 11:16 pm
Ammonite; The arctic is telling us all something very important, if we will just listen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This quote just made me laugh. This is science? We “listen to the arctic.”…..

Hi benfrommo. You choose to focus on a turn of phrase but ignore its underlying meaning. I offer it as an opportunity for regular WUWT readers to reflect on recent information and how if fits (or doesn’t) with their world view. Perhaps you would be more confortable if I provided tables of PIOMAS data, their confirmation by Cryosat 2 and plots under varying assumptions showing an imminent rendesvouz with zero?

So has this thread evidenced a reflective tone? As usual, no. Most posters are too busy proving themselves “right” to consider much in the way of implications. For example, how many times have WUWT readers been assured that purported temperature changes under AGW would have little effect in practice? Yet changes in the arctic show it to be far more sensitive to “small” perturbations (whatever their cause) than previously thought. Do you pause at this point or immediately fetch a graph to prove I’m an idiot?

“Nice try, but no cigar.
Credible ? in what way ? You just made a bald statement of belief with no attempt at substantiation. Perhaps you’d like to explain the mechanism by which co2 has induced climate change (global warming) and how that translates into reduced ice cover.

You obviously haven’t been reading WUWT for very long otherwise you wouldn’t still be trotting out religious unsubstantiated statements.”

Well, like others who post here who believe in the scientific method, I am trying to substantiate a case, but its mighty difficult to put an argument to people who deny just about every basic starting point, even including that CO2 is a greenhouse gas – a scientific fact established nearly 200 years ago. I agree I have not been reading WUWT for long but it has not taken long either to figure out its purpose.

I asked Smokey to respond to the CO2 point, which he failed to do. He thinks the CO2 contribution to the natural greenhouse effect is negligable, and so I asked what would happen if CO2 was absent from the atmosphere. No answer.

You J Martin say

“at most about one degree C cooler. This of course presumes that co2 has any heating effect at all.”

But give no reference for either claim.

You also calim

“Global temperatures have been declining for the last 15 years”

No they have not. They have been flatlining for about the last 9 years, but not declining.

And

“God has turned down the dimmer control on the Sun.”

Which is an inane comment – and then you accuse me of having a religious belief in climate change ?

and you add

“chill out, that ice is going to come back with a vengeance as per the Little Ice Age”

Again – no evidence – just a pile more wishful thinking to back a pre-determined position.

JJ said

“Actually, what that temp record shows is about 0.5C warming in the century to 1940, and a similar amount from 1980 to present. There is no change in acceleration.”

So JJ you conveniently miss out the period 1940 to 1980 to calculate a rate of change to suit your case ? Thats some method you are using there. Maybe Governments can miss out the period since 2008 to show there has been no banking crisis ?

Getting back to the evidence

CO2 is an important natural greenhouse gas and much more important than a 1C contribution.

CO2 accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect – that keeps Earth about 21 C (or more depending on source) warmer than it would be with just oxygen and nitrogen.

So here is the killer argument – if the amount of CO2 is increased substantially over natural levels, it will get warmer. How controversial is that ?

How does that melt ice ? Well lets see, a warmer ocean below the ice and a warmer atmosphere above the ice (reference the many anomaly maps on this website) ?

It seems that with the sceptic community it all boils down pretty much to one basic argument and that is that CO2 has much less warming potential than a host of studies have concluded or even that CO2 has no warming potential which turns atmospheric physics back to the early C19th.

I see a lot of comments here that although the Arctic sea ice area / extent minimums are dropping over time, the maximum area /extent is relatively unchanged. Several posters have noted that this is because more of the thicker / older ice is melting out over the passing years, but this thicker ice is being replaced by thinner ice in the frigid Arctic winters. So, although the ice area / extent returns to more or less the same value in the winter each year, because this ice is thinner, over time, more ice melts out in the summer, which leads to record low areas/extents as we are seeing this year.

Notice that the highest maximum Arctic ice volume can be seen in the 1979 – 2000 average and is around 30 million cubic kilometers. As you can see from the 2002 – 2012 graphed data, there have been year to year drops in the maxima for most years (with 2008 and 2009 being exceptions due to the extremely large drop in 2007) right up until 2012.

I checked the data, and the largest maximum volume that I could find for any year was in 1979 (the first year of satellite data) at 33 million cubic kilometers. The lowest maximum value is from 2012 and was 21.9 million cubic kilometers, a drop from the highest measured volume (in 1979) of about 11 million cu. km – a decrease of around 33 percent in maximum volume over the last 33 years.

The largest minimum volume that I could find in the data was in 1979 at 16.9 million cubic kilometers. The minimum volume was for day 238 of 2012 at 3.6 million cubic kilometers. This was the last date with data in the set – August 25th, if I have calculated correctly. This is a decrease in the minimum value of about 13.3 million cu. km, or 78 percent over 33 years.

So, although the minimum volume is decreasing faster (78% in 33 years vs. 33% for the maximum volume), the maximum volume is decreasing as well. Interestingly, it just occurs to me that although the percentage losses are very different, the total amount of ice loss at the two time periods (11 million cu. km at the maximum, 13.3 million cu. km at the minimum). It appears that, for the most part, once the ice is gone, it doesn’t come back.

As I and others have said, the facts that although the maximum Arctic sea ice area and extent have not changed much over the last 33 years, and the maximum Arctic sea ice volume has decreased by 33% over that same period lead to the logical conclusion that the ice has thinned at maximum volume/extent/area time (to the degree that these three measurements overlap). The Polar Ice Center demonstrates this with their graph of Daily Average Arctic Sea Ice Thickness:

Notice that the average Arctic sea ice thickness has been declining over the last 33 years at all times of the year.

I hope this clarifies what posters mean when they say that even though the average Arctic sea ice area and extent both return to about the same value each year, Arctic sea ice is clearly declining over time due to a decrease in thickness.

It seems that you have been handed your hat already. You are clearly not a follower of WUWT? QED.”

I get it now. Unless you are a loyal follower of WUWT, prepared to agree with all that is pronounced on it, you are not welcome and also get branded a liar merely for referencing your case and asking others to do so.

That sounds more like a religious cult than a forum for discussion of science.

“Following the new record low recorded on August 26, Arctic sea ice extent continued to drop and is now below 4.00 million square kilometers (1.54 million square miles). Compared to September conditions in the 1980s and 1990s, this represents a 45% reduction in the area of the Arctic covered by sea ice.

In 2012, the rate of ice loss for August was 91,700 square kilometers (35,400 square miles) per day, the fastest observed for the month of August over the period of satellite observations.

Between mid-March and the third week of August, the total amount of multiyear ice within the Arctic Ocean declined by 33%, and the oldest ice, ice older than five years, declined by 51%.”

So – a THIRD of multiyear ice and HALF the oldest ice melting in one summer ?

James Abbott says:
September 5, 2012 at 3:48 pm
The difficulty is that no baseline for what is “normal” has been established. You have far too little data to assume the things you are assuming. If you have cyclical variation of much larger timescales (for example twice the satellite era) you have no foundation for the assumptions being made. There is simply not enough information to confirm your “hypothesis”. To state with certainty based on so little data is a deception.

“I asked Smokey to respond to the CO2 point, which he failed to do. He thinks the CO2 contribution to the natural greenhouse effect is negligable (sic), and so I asked what would happen if CO2 was absent from the atmosphere. No answer.”

Well, excuse me if I don’t drop what I’m doing every time you ask a question. And yes, CO2 is a “greenhouse gas”, as I have stated many times.

So what?

And to answer your question, if there were no CO2 there would be no life on Earth. I’ve also stated many times that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. More CO2 is better. The biosphere is starved of CO2. Worrying about an addition to that essential and beneficial trace gas is crazy. You’ve been listening to Algore too much.

And what, exactly, is the problem if Arctic ice melts? It has happened before, repeatedly and routinely. It has happened during the past century, and throughout the Holocene. No catastrophe resulted. So why all the wild-eyed arm waving? Running around in circles and screaming about the natural Arctic ice cycle makes you sound exactly like Chicken Little [that’s Chicken Licken to you]. But the sky isn’t falling, an acorn just hit you on the head, so now you believe the sky is falling.

It amazes me how crazy and worked up some folks get over what is clearly a natural cycle that has been repeated regularly. If you understood the concept of the null hypothesis, you would understand. But you believe that the current ordinary fluctuations are somehow unprecedented. They are not. They are completely normal.

Earth to Abbott: It’s all happened before, in exactly the same way, and during times when CO2 was much lower. Therefore, CO2 is not the cause. There is nothing unusual happening. You are just scaring yourself over a misguided belief that has no scientific evidence to support it. None. It is nature at work, that’s all.

The ignoring (or ignorance) of known historic and geologic information is another thing that reveal the systemic bias in government and academia. Selective information is the same as a lie, IMHO. The motive and opportunity are there. No need for a conspiracy theory. Back to you James,…….

No they have not. They have been flatlining for about the last 9 years, but not declining.

The above depends on the data set you are using. And for those sets below that are flat for over 15 years, they ARE slightly declining for the last 15 years. See the site below and note the yellow downward sloping line for RSS for example.

On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is flat for all practical purposes range from 10 years and 10 months to 15 years and 8 months. Following is the longest period of time (above 10 years) where each of the data sets is more or less flat. (*No slope is positive except UAH which is +0.0022 per year or +0.22/century up to July. So while it is not flat, the slope is not statistically significant either.)

1. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 10 months (goes to July, but note * above)
2. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 5 months (goes to July)
3. Combination of 4 global temperatures: since November 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to July)
4. HadCrut3: since February 1997 or 15 years, 6 months (goes to July)
5. Sea surface temperatures: since January 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to July)
6. RSS: since December 1996 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to July)RSS is 188/204 or 92.2% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 8 months (goes to July using GISS. See below.)

For #7: Hadcrut4 only goes to December 2010 so what I did was get the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was that the slope was 0.0049 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.0041 from December 2000. So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, and IF it then were to trend like GISS, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 8 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with Hadcrut3 gives the same end result, but GISS comes out much sooner each month.) See:

The WUWT Sea Ice reference page currently has more long-term arctic ice trend charts from Cryosphere Today than any other source. There is no problem in itself with showing such *if* you show other data (less false) as well. Let people see the contradictions, for that is the real world and truly educational. Restricting the page *solely* to continuously updated graphs is not best (as it tends to rule out most sources, including scientific papers, practically in favor of exceptionally well-funded public education/propaganda sources almost alone, a problem when funding is highly slanted). Best would be having a historical archive subsection as well.

Currently, in ice trend charts, the reference page does show http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif which is relatively somewhat good in context, as in better than Cryosphere Today anyway. (If one draws lines on it, it illustrates, according to even NSIDC data, arctic peak ice in 1996, 2000, 2008, and 2012 was equal within 1 pixel on its scale, which would be within 0.1 million square kilometers). But adding the former as well would give readers more of the overall picture.

The WUWT Sea Ice reference page currently has more long-term arctic ice trend charts from Cryosphere Today than any other source. There is no problem in itself with showing such *if* you show other data (less false) as well. Let people see the contradictions, for that is the real world and truly educational. Restricting the page *solely* to continuously updated graphs is not best (as it tends to rule out most sources, including scientific papers, practically in favor of exceptionally well-funded public education/propaganda sources almost alone, a problem when funding is highly slanted). Best would be having a historical archive subsection as well.

If any one of those was added, I would figure there would be significant odds of a significant portion of references I could submit having an impact, so then at that point I would be quite happy to spend substantial time in subsequent days and weeks on assembling a list of others of potential.

RACookPE1978 says, September 4, 2012 at 6:30 pm
Mosh answered your question hopefully. I was trying to point out that you can’t sensibly predict outcomes of cycles that are clearly hysteretic. Notice I did not say there isn’t a trend. You might get lucky; if there’s a regime shift you might not. And in this situation you’ll likely underestimate.

Here are a couple of changes reported in 2007, attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation at the time.

Spielhagen et al 2011 was aired here briefly. Despite the uncertainty, it seems from this and an arm full of other papers that Arctic ice decline is primarily driven by increased energy delivered via North Atlantic currents. However, that paper attempts to go back further and Fig 3c suggests this has been on-going since 1835 or so but with a distinct pause midway through the last century. There’s a similar temp gradient in either half [vague and says nothing about flow rates]. The question of course is why.

For me that doesn’t stack up against the ramp up of CO2, Knorr 2009 (Fig 1) for example. How did this additional energy get into the Atlantic in the first place and what’s significant about 1835? Why the pause and where’s the evidence?

Smokey says: September 4, 2012 at 9:06 pm“click3 [Antarctic has TEN TIMES more ice than the Arctic]”

Umm … the graph you link to says Arctic average area = 10 million km^2; Antarctic average area = 16 million km^2. Last time I checked, that is 1.6 times as much sea ice, not “TEN TIMES more”.

Or perhaps you are discussing LAND ice, but Antarctic land ice is not declining. I guess that doesn’t help your case, either.

Smokey also says:“I have posted numerous first-hand, eyewitness observations [that the Arctic has melted repeatedly in the last century] … “
Yet some how from all that evidence, you cannot extract strong evidence from even ONE YEAR that there has been large-scale melting in the past century or two. Give it your best shot — which year and which specific eyewitness accounts support an Arctic-wide melting event similar to this year?

As soon as Anthony calls it, it goes the other way!
We should hook him to a day trading machine, he’s peak or low picking abilities are uncanny, I propose as soon as he makes a prediction we short it the other way, sure as day follows night the watts effect will kick in, the stock will be jinxed and will do down not long after.

“Actually, what that temp record shows is about 0.5C warming in the century to 1940, and a similar amount from 1980 to present. There is no change in acceleration.”

So JJ you conveniently miss out the period 1940 to 1980 to calculate a rate of change to suit your case ?

The period you refer to was called “cooling”. I left it out because doing so helps your case, and I didn’t want to be accused of cherry picking as you had done. If you would rather I not leave it out, that is OK with me.

Putting it back in leaves a trend of 0.015C/year from the beginning of the century to 1940, and a trend of only 0.009C/year for the period 1940 to present. Apparently, the net effect of “global warming” is to cut the natural warming rate by 60%.

That is the accounting that accrues when one cherry picks periods like you did, instead of making an honest comparison as I did.

The legitimate way to look at such processes over such short time periods is to look to see if the short term warming that we experienced starting approx 1980 has any precident in the past, before alleged CO2 effects could have had any effect. It does.

Looking at 1920-40 vs the recent warming period 1980-2000 is another. That one leaves out most of the flat spot that we have been in for the last decade or more. Leaving out that flat spot helps your case – let me know if you’d prefer I add it back in.

Of course, the better thing to do (as I stated earlier and you ran from like a frightened school girl) is to look at longer, more climatologically relevant periods. Smokey showed you one of those, here:

Your conclusions are the result of dishonest analysis. Feel free to lie to yourself, but we are under no obligation to accept such crap from you.

So here is the killer argument – if the amount of CO2 is increased substantially over natural levels, it will get warmer. How controversial is that ?

Quite. Because the incremental effect of CO2 declines as per a log function with increasing concentration, the potential effect of the second 300 ppm is much less than that of the first 300 ppm. It is perhaps 1C, if one accepts IPCC figurings. Too, that declining potential is not guaranteed to be realized, given that the Earth’s climate system is a complex beast with numerous recursive mechanisms that often manifest as negative feedbacks and swamping effects. How much warmer, if any? You don’t know. Be a dear and don’t pretend that you do.

It seems that with the sceptic community it all boils down pretty much to one basic argument …

Robert says:
September 5, 2012 at 3:10 pm
I see a lot of comments here that although the Arctic sea ice area / extent minimums are dropping over time, the maximum area /extent is relatively unchanged. Several posters have noted that this is because more of the thicker / older ice is melting out over the passing years, but this thicker ice is being replaced by thinner ice in the frigid Arctic winters. So, although the ice area / extent returns to more or less the same value in the winter each year, because this ice is thinner, over time, more ice melts out in the summer, which leads to record low areas/extents as we are seeing this year.

Thinner ice doesn’t mean more ice melts in the summer it means less ice melts in order to produce the same ice free area.

You appear to be assuming that over time the ice formed over the winter (single year ice) is getting thinner. I have seen no evidence this is the case and the return to the same winter maximum extent indicates this is not the case. As I noted above, the amount of ice formed over the winter is increasing.

If the reduced summer ice minimum is solely caused by melting of older multi-year ice, and I have seen no evidence this isn’t the case, then clearly the decreasing minimum extent will stop when this ice has all melted out.

The $64K question is whether new multi-year ice will have the same propensity to melt disproportionately faster than single year ice. If it does then minimum ice extent will stabilise around the current extent.

However, if I am right and embedded black carbon is the cause of the faster melt of older ice, then new multi-year ice will have less embedded BC as atmospheric BC levels have declined over the Arctic and new multi-year will be less susceptible to melt.

Thus summer minimum ice extent will start to rise again in the near future. I predict in the next 2 or 3 years.

“None of what’s going on today is outside long term variations in ice cover and thickness. On November 20, 1817 the President of the Royal Society proposed a letter to the British Admiralty:

It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate inexplicable at present to us must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past inclosed (sic) the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years greatly abated.

Mr. Scoresby, a very intelligent young man who commands a whaling vessel from Whitby observed last year that 2000 square leagues of ice with which the Greenland Seas between the latitudes of 74° and 80°N have been hitherto covered, has in the last two years entirely disappeared. The change in circulation was triggered by the eruption of Tambora in 1815.

In the heat of Cancun, Mexico, everyone is learning that the fallacies of climate science – and especially attempts to exploit fear and lack of knowledge or understanding – are on very thin ice because they are totally politically motivated.”

You have a ton of good graphs at your disposal. Would you mind posting some of them here or elsewhere, when you get around to it? I’ll probably strawman out page in the next couple weeks and then do a thread to capture additional content, and accurate descriptions for each chart.

“Scientists have pieced together historical ice conditions to determine that Arctic sea ice could have been much lower in summer as recently as 5,500 years ago. Before then, scientists think it possible that Arctic sea ice cover melted completely during summers about 125,000 years ago, during a warm period between ice ages.

To look back into the past, researchers combine data and records from indirect sources known as proxy records. Researchers delved into shipping charts going back to the 1950s, which noted sea ice conditions. The data gleaned from those records, called the Hadley data set, show that Arctic sea ice has declined since at least the mid-1950s. Shipping records exist back to the 1700s, but do not provide complete coverage of the Arctic Ocean. However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years,”

And from there, follow the links to the primary sources. Note, it says possibly much lower 5,500 years ago, and ice-free 125,000 years ago. That’s what the evidence says. Now, if it was cherry-picked PR, why would it say that? Because it’s not, it is the honest result of real science. And it also says the current decline is unprecedented in the last few hundred years.

Now, if you want evidence it its anthropogenic, you have to look elsewhere. But you can Google as easily as I can. Only you don’t want to.

A depiction covering from the 1920s through the end of the 20th century:

As can be seen in the plot for the Siberian Arctic basin, there was major rapid loss of ice during the late 1920s through until the early 1940s. Then mostly ice grew until the late 1980s.

Particularly by the 1990s, ice extent went down again, but, as a multi-year average, ice loss then was not impressive at all compared to the how little ice there was in the early 1940s.

Unlike the prior Siberian Arctic basin data, the North-European basin data from that source unfortunately has a data gap about right exactly on the most interesting spot of comparison, the early 1940s:

(The data gap is understandable considering the war at the time).

Still, even with the gap, one sees more relative loss of ice during the first half of the 20th century than during the second half, relative to their start points in each case.

Arguing temperature changes, plus or minus, based on the flawed and falsely-adjusted data available to us right now is sheer madness, which we fight out with each and every new post from Anthony here on WUWT. Have we been warming for the last 11,000 years, since the end of the last ice age when there were glaciers pushing all the way to where the Ohio River sits today? Yes. Are there glaciers burying the land now? No. I.E. the climate has warmed somewhat steadily.None of this was caused by CO2 or by AGW. Will it still get warmer? Quite possibly yes, as there fossil-record palm fronds on the tops of the mountains north of California where it is too cold for palms to grow today. Even if they were laid down in marshes and flat-land swamps eons ago before being uplifted, their current latitude versus the seasonal variations of the tilting of the Earth argue toward the fact that the climate had to be much warmer overall for them to grow sucessfully to the point where they were thick enough to create fossils. The same can be said for the coal deposits in England.

So, y’all are spending a tremendous amount of time and mental resources to refight a useless argument over a negligable (and highly suspect given the tampering with the data) temperature increase (or decrease) during a comfortable period when the Earth isn’t a sauna or an ice cube. I come to this post to see what the ice is doing NOW, not to refight this same war over 1″ of territory.

No, we haven’t. The warming that started with the beginning of the current interglacial ended over 5,000 years ago. There has been a slight long term cooling trend over that time period as the Earth’s orbital peculiarities shifted ever so slowly away from the warming that initiated the Holocene. Any recent warming is taking place despite – not because of – the Earth’s long term orbital forcings.

Quote 1) “Our data is from passive microwave imagery. It is not affected by clouds, it obtains complete data every data (except when there may be a sensor issue), it has only consistent, automated processes. So we have much more confidence in comparing different days, years, etc. in our passive microwave data than is possible using MASIE.”

Quote 2 (Regarding your spotting ice under the breaks in the clouds) “Finally, MASIE’s mandate is to try to produce the best estimate they can of where there is any sea ice. So they may include even very low concentrations of ice <15%. In looking at visible imagery from MODIS, in the few cloud-free regions, there does appear to be some small concentration of ice where MASIE is mapping ice and our satellite data is not detecting ice. This is ice that is very sparse, likely quite thin. So it will probably melt out completely in the next week or two."

Re David Ball’s comment about the Royal Society reading their own reports. Perhaps they also read the reports of the Royal Navy’s expeditions that were undertaken as a result of those RS reports which were failures and encountered pack ice which impeded their progress?

As soon as Anthony calls it, it goes the other way!
We should hook him to a day trading machine, he’s peak or low picking abilities are uncanny, I propose as soon as he makes a prediction we short it the other way, sure as day follows night the watts effect will kick in, the stock will be jinxed and will do down not long after.
————————————————————————————————————-

Objection.

According to the graph “Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature” from the Danish Meteorological Institute, as well as the graphs “Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperatures” by NOAA ESRL and “Arctic Sea Surface Temperature” by Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) – HYCOM Consortium for Data-Assimilative Ocean Modeling – HUGE swathes of the Arctic Ocean are at -2 degrees Celsius, the freezing point of saltwater.

In fact, these areas are so large that I assume a whole lot of ice forming there already – which, due to it’s “slushy” nature, only doesn’t show up on any microwave-, radar- od visual scan, becase said scans can’t distinguish it’s image from the scatter of waves, yet.

I, for one, expect a MASsIVE refreeze starting these days – in fact, so much of it, that some people will be going to bring up sensor issues to explain it away.

For the several folks that have wondered why the maximum extent has been more stable a value than the minimum, consider that the Arctic Ocean is mostly surrounded by land. It has a definite maximum size, and when the whole thing ices over in winter, the area effectively flatlines at that amount – about 14 million sq miles. YMMV, depending on your definition of the area of the Arctic Ocean

No, Smokey, the Arctic has never been this ice-free in summer before. When has the Northeast Passage been ice-free? Instead of bringing non-existent evidence, you bluster ‘BFD’. Do you think the “Warm Arctic, Cold Continents” effect is a fantasy?

dvunkannon says:
September 6, 2012 at 8:22 am
I know that Smokey is quite capable of defending himself, but you are trying to change the discussion. The northeast passage has been navigated by ICEBREAKERS. Wake up and smell the roses, not cow farts. Very poor redirect attempt.

Thanks for trying to support the proposition that there have been similar melt events in the past. As a skeptic, I would point out:
1) You refer to a single report by a single whaling vessel.
2) 2,000 square leagues is ~ 50,000 sq km. This is actually a relatively small change in the grand scheme of things, where the summer extent is typically two orders of magnitude larger than this (although I will grant you that we have no data about the changes in other areas — they may have also been unusually low areas, or they could have been close to normal (or even above normal)).
3) The Royal Society had economic incentives to push this idea (ie getting funding for scientific expeditions).
4) You provide no contemporaneous reports of the NW Passage or the NE Passage being open, nor of other areas being unusually ice-free.

So, yes, you have provided a glimmer of hope for the claims of other similar melting events in the last few centuries, but certainly nothing that is close to conclusive.

J. Martin—-Thanks for a respectful response. Two things before I continue.
Are you familiar with the absorption spectra of CO2, H2O, CH4 and the other gases referred to as GHG?
On a second item. Of course as water warms, gases become less soluble. By my own calculations, considering three phases of dissolved CO2, and the purported temp change over 100 yrs, of 0.7 deg Cel. (I think when all the facts are taken into account, the temp increase will be less) I calculated that about 5 % of the CO2 increase comes from CO2 escaping.
Now as a caveat to what I just said, that 0.7 deg change is change in the atmosphere and not water temp and there are other factors such as convection and salinity. It was just to give a general idea.

dvunkannon says: September 6, 2012 at 8:22 am“No, Smokey, the Arctic has never been this ice-free in summer before. ”

Be very careful using the word “never”. “Never” = 4 billion years and that is an impossible claim to support. Something like “never in the last 200 years” or “never in the last 2000 years” would make the hypothesis more testable and more relevant.

Even 10,000 years ago conditions were quite different, with the Arctic getting significantly more energy during the summer (due to changes in the earth’s orbit). Such conditions would have led to less summer ice — quite possibly even “nearly ice free” conditions.

Of course, the orbital conditions are different now, so this “natural cycle” cannot explain the current low ice conditions.

@David Ballhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Sea_Route#Ice-free_navigation
Not ICEBREAKERS… Commercial shipping. I’m sorry you consider it a redirect, but if Smokeydokey has evidence that current conditions are part of a ‘natural cycle’ that means they have happened before. (Sorta the definition of cycle…) So I think it appropriate to ask about a specific part of the current conditions, and see what evidence the Smokester has in his humidor. The ice has mainly retreated away from the Bering Strait and the northern coast of Russia, so if these conditions happened previously, that is what we would expect to have evidence of previously.

Was it ice-free in 1937, when the ICEBREAKER Sedov got trapped in the ICE for a couple of years? Was it ice-free in the 19th Century? 18th? 17th? 16th? How long is this natural cycle, anyway?

Of course, if Smogey _had_ evidence, he wouldn’t retreat to ‘BFD’…

@tjfolkerts – point taken! Someone upthread was saying how balmy it was during the Carboniferous, so things can’t be so bad…

David Bell queries: “Do you have any understanding of what you write? … “

I don’t understand your point. I never specifically claimed current ice conditions were unnatural, so that whole post is a straw man.

I DID claim that natural changes in the orbit could not be used as a reason for the current conditions.
* Do you doubt that the orbit was different 10,000 years ago?
* Do you doubt that the increased insolation at that time could have lead to nearly ice-free summers ~ 10,000 years ago?
* Do you think that this specific natural cycle of slow, predictable orbital change has suddenly changed to produce more summer heating, accounting for the current decline in ice?

David Bell also claims: “I provided EXACTLY what you asked for. The first time.

No, I asked “Give it your best shot — which year and which specific eyewitness accounts support Arctic-wide melting similar to this whole past decade?”

You did provide a year (1817) — that was a good start. I asked for “accounts” (plural) but you provided an account (singular) — a little weak, but still it is something. But you clearly failed to provide evidence of “Arctic-wide melting”, instead providing information about one coast of Greenland. Finally, your quote only shows that the ice in that area decreased, but gives no absolute values for the total area before or after, so it cannot directly confirm or deny even that the area in question was larger or smaller than current conditions.

On the other hand, navigation of both the NW Passage and the NE Passage were both first accomplished about a century ago – in expeditions that took 2-3 years to complete as they tried to navigate the summer ice. So despite massive efforts by many countries, no one ever found a way thru the Arctic in all of those other years that were supposedly similar to current conditions. In the last decade, however, many commercial ships have made the passage thru the Arctic with relatively little trouble. That provides pretty strong evidence that the current conditions are indeed different from the past!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, once again, “Give it your best shot — which year and which specific eyewitness accounts support Arctic-wide melting similar to this whole past decade?”

I have posted observational evidence repeatedly. Your failure to understand it is no excuse. Here are more eye witness accounts from many different sources. If you believe they were all lying, you are a credulous dope:

Now, let’s see you post observational evidence showing that Arctic ice was not declining during those years. Ball’s in your court, chump.

tjf,

Thanx for your repectful comments. I suggest that you read the comments and newspaper accounts that I linked to here. It is unlikely that every one of those observers fabricated their stories. And if they didn’t, that is strong evidence that the Arctic routinely goes through periods of low or ice free conditions. Face reality, Arctic ice fluctuations are normal and natural events.

“And if they didn’t, that is strong evidence that the Arctic routinely goes through periods of low or ice free conditions. Face reality, Arctic ice fluctuations are normal and natural events.”

1. The arctic does not routinely go through this kind of area wide retreat.
2. You have not defined the word “normal”. Your comment is not falsifiable and does not
count as a scientific statement.

Here is what we can say with evidence. We’ve seen nothing like this since 1979. Before 1979 all the data one would like to use to compare is sparse, uses different methods, is not supported by simultaneous multiple observing platforms, is highly uncertain, and is qualitative rather than qauntitative. A proper Null is based on a QUANTITATIVE statement that can be tested useing statistical methods.

Finally, We are now seeing annual cycles in the data that Willis himself argued would falsified the “natural variation null”

Smokey there are NO scientific quantitative observations that support that fact.

None,

1. Scientific. Point me at the data source and the method used to compute it.
2. Quantitative. Numbers. as in sea ice area for each and every arctic sea.

And when you produce that data I will ask the proper skeptical questions. How was the measurement calibrated? are there multiple independent sources? what method was used?
was the method tested and calibrated?

Finally, We are now seeing annual cycles in the data that Willis himself argued would falsified the “natural variation null”

As Willis Eschenbach is fond of saying, QUOTE HIS WORDS. You know Willis can get quite upset, and rightfully so, about people saying what he said without quoting the exact words, and showing where he said them, since so many mis-paraphrase what he said and take it out of context.

So quote his words and show where he said them.

Or are you trying to slip something through before Willis officially returns from Burning Man while he’s not reading WUWT and doesn’t have the opportunity to respond?

“The oddity about the data is what happens after 2007. Suddenly, there is a strong annual signal. I have put in vertical black lines to highlight this signal. The vertical lines show the end of September of each year. Before 2007, there is only a small variation in the data, and it does not have an annual signal. After 2007, the variation gets large, and there is a clear annual aspect to the signal. The area in September (the time of minimum ice) is smaller than we would expect. And the area in March (the time of maximum ice) is larger than we would expect.”

Let’s wrap this up in a nutshell. Willis observed a phenomena in the ice area that challenges the Null. I pointed that out. He accepted that it would challenge the null. that is what the data shows.

he then suspected the sensor software. With no evidence of a software change ( These are put in notes for researchers) he tries to reject the data. It’s now been two years. And still no reply. The record stands. The data show a rejection of the null. Speculations about changes to software have not been confirmed. There is no record of a software change in advisories that PIs routinely post about their data products. There is no follow up on the letter to the PI.

The data stands. The null is busted. The null is busted until you or somebody else proves that the data is an artifact. Arm waving doesnt make data disappear.

Dunno, looks like an issue for the null hypothesis. ice cycling like its never cycled before.

It would … if I thought it was real. I don’t, I think it is from the known change in the satellite and the way that is being dealt with by means of a new algorithm.

w.

#####################

1. Willis notes a cycling in the data.
2. I note that this challenges the Null.
3. He agrees. and ads the speculation that the data is in error.

A. There is no evidence that the data is in error ( so much for using data to falsify the null)
B. The speculation that it was a software change, has NO support anywhere.

So, there we have it. Data that contradicts the Null. When that happens do people pull out their book on Feynman and say.. REJECT THE NULL.

Nope. They attack the data.
Do they have any evidence to attack the data?
Nope. They speculate about a software change.
Do they have any evidence from the online records that software was changed?
Nope. They just speculate cause they want to keep the null.
Is there a way they can stop fooling themselves?
Yup.
Do they follow feynmans advice?
Nope.

Finally, We are now seeing annual cycles in the data that Willis himself argued would falsified the “natural variation null”
=====================
So, the new conjecture is, if Willis is wrong I am right ?

@Smokey – Thanks, I love reading the same wire service story picked up by different small town newspapers. Excellent coverage of Australia!

And yet, none of them are about the free passage of shipping via the Northeast Passage… why is that, do you think? To the contrary, one article calls Murmansk Russia’s only ice free port. But we know that isn’t true today, don’t we, Smokey?

Why talk about the ice thinning to 6 1/2 feet when you are claiming the area was ice-free, as it is today?

Newspaper cuttings aren’t science, Smokey. Where are the error bars?

You have, however, shown that global warming was a minor concern for most of the 20th century, to which some responded with the happy thought that the northern continental US might become sub-tropical. Do you know how well wheat grows in sub-tropical weather, Smokey? I’m guessing not as well as it grows with the current climate.

But tell me, are you claiming that these clippings represent the low of a previous cycle? Was there a low in the 50s? In the 20s? How long is the natural cycle, Smokey?

Thanks Jack. I think I see what you are pointing out in your link at the end of August:

Another curiosity is here. On the NATICE interactive maps on demand page (click on Arctic Daily in the pulldown menu):

The numbers they give for 80% and marginal ice add up to an extent of 6,149, 305 square kilometers.

So who to believe? It depends on the method, and who thinks their method is most representative of reality. Measuring sea ice via satellite, especially when you use a single passive sensor system that has been show in the past to have degradation problems and outright failure (which I was told weren’t worth mentioning until they discovered I was right and pulled the plug) might be a case of putting all your eggs in one basket. I suspect that at some point, we’ll see a new basket that maybe isn’t so worn, but for now, the old basket provides a comfort for those who relish new records, even though those records may be virtual.

Note that we don’t see media pronouncements from NOAA’s NATICE center like “death spiral” and “the Arctic is screaming” like we get from its activist director, Mark Serreze. So I’d tend to take NSIDC’s number with a grain of salt, particularly since they have not actively embraced the new IMS system when it comes to reporting totals. Clearly NSDIC knows the value of the media attention when they announce new lows, and director Serreze clearly knows how to make hay from it.

But this begs the question, why not move to the new system like NOAA’s National Ice Center has done? Well, it is a lot like our July temperature records. We have a shiny new state of the art Climate Reference Network system that gives a national average that is lower for July than the old USHCN network and all of its problems, yet NCDC doesn’t tell you about the July numbers that come from it. Those tasks were left to Dr. Roy Spencer and myself.

The other thing that occurs, caused by large ocean-wide storms and powerful winds, is the fragmentation of the ice. A flat layer of ice on meter thick, let’s stay in even meters and you can scale as preferred, will register by satellites as one square meter of area per one cubic meter of ice volume. However, if this is broken into long slivers of ice (the worst case) a ten meter long sliver will rotate to float exposing one square meter of area per ten cubic meters of ice volume since ice floats with only 1/9th of the volume above the water surface. That is an immediate loss of 8/9ths of the visible surface area even though the same amount ice is really there.

Even a one cubic meter, one meter on each edge, will rotate to expose just a regular tetrahedron on the surface with 42% of the surface exposed and all surfaces at angles to zenith that limits radiation being sensed from above (satellites). I feel the huge drop in the visible-to-satellite surface area just shows, to some degree, the error in satellite readings as the ice was fragmented into chunks of various shapes and no longer floating flat. For a while the ice was still present (may still be) but no longer visible from a radiation standpoint (IR, microwave passively) from far above.

Jack, please scratch or modify that portion of the comment as it stands about the sliver. That is of course not correct. Such a sliver will still float horizontally but would also still rotate to expose a decreased area to the volume present undeneath. (can’t believe I just wrote that, what was I just thinking?☺)

tried to debate this on the skpetical science site with ( guess what ) FACTS,,,, and ( guess what ) they did not like the FACTS and ( guess what ) ,,, they BANNED ME !! LOL !! I also smashed them on Glaciers, both their Site Manager and some bi-polar moron called “daniel” accused me of mis-representing one of the most basic facts in glaciology……and accused Jonathan Bamber ( Uni Bristol ) of talking rubbish !?!? …. guess I had better hang out here…..

David Ball says: September 6, 2012 at 12:41 pm
“You got beat at your little game and it bugs you so much, you stoop to mispelling (sic) my name. How juevenile (sic).

The irony — you misspell two words in one sentence, yet still assume that my typo is some evil plot against you.

You can’t seem to actually argue the facts, so you use a typo as an excuse to avoid addressing the issues. I point out specific facts, with quotes to back up both what I said and what you said, so you resort to ad hominem attacks. [sigh]

The current Greenland warming, while not yet quite matching the temperatures of 70 years ago …..

which is actually part of this …

6. GISS records show most of Greenland cooler today than 70 years ago. Why should we be concerned?

We should be concerned because the warming in Greenland of 70 years ago was part of the regional warming in the North Atlantic region discussed in questions 1 and 2 above. Seventy years ago one might expect temperatures to eventually cool as the regional climate fluctuated from a warmer state to a cooler state. The current Greenland warming, while not yet quite matching the temperatures of 70 years ago, is part of a global warming signal that for the foreseeable future will continue to increase temperatures (with of course occasional short-term fluctuations), in Greenland and around the world.

So the clipped quote significantly mus-interprets the intent of the original quote. 70 years ago, only parts of the Arctic seemed to be as warm as current conditions; now it all is warm.

2

“Examination of several proxy records (e.g., sediment cores) of sea ice indicate ice-free or near ice-free summer conditions for at least some time during the period of 15,000 to 5,000 years ago”

Conditions were significantly different 10,000 years ago, with considerably more summer insolation. So this does not apply to current times and cannot explain current conditions.

3&4 (actually from the same article)

CLEVELAND, Feb. 16 (A.A.P.) Dr. William S. Carlson, an Arctic expert, said to-night that the Polar icecaps were melting at an astonishing and unexplained rate and were threatening to swamp seaports by raising the ocean levels.
The glaciers of Norway and Alaska are only half the size they were 50 years age. The temperature around Spitsbergen has so modified that the sailing time has lengthened from three to eight months of the year,”

What is missing is this: “Dr. Carlson said it would take hundreds of years for the melting to have much effect, but the rate in the last half century had been exceedingly rapid.” That takes some of the hype out of the quote.

Also, looking at ice this past year, it appears that Spitzbergen had open water nearby ALL TWELVE months this past year! So whatever changes occurred in the 1st half of this century have only intensified recently.

I don;t have time to critique all of the articles. A quick glance through them suggests …
* Conditions in the 1940’s were almost certainly warmer than 50 or a hundred years earlier. But there is no evidence that they were as warm as today.
* “Polar” or “North Pole” are often used to mean the entire Arctic region, not a specific point.
* Glaciers were retreating throughout the 1900’s, but there is no indication that sea ice was anywhere near as low as the past decade.

All-in-all, I can find nothing even remotely supporting the hypothesis that Arctic conditions any time in the last few centuries were every similar to current conditions.

if you look at 2007 and 2012 SIE minimuma, its not melt that is causing it, its weather. Melt really stops a major influence past mid July. That said, the Alarmists are too thick it seems to spot one real indictator, that is the gradient or the graph during June ( the month of max energy exchange ) , in that respect the “melt” of early summer 2012 is remarkable. but the minimum is not. Being fools they are jumping up and down about the minimum that is not really relevant but missed the real indicator this season. Typical. Ironic really because something strange did happen this year , but it did not happen in August/September,

Not to mention the fact that your whole “Arctic ice cycle” schtick is somewhat contingent on their being a recovery at some point. Worse yet, you went further than predicting a recovery, you announced it had already begun:

If someone makes numerous predictions, and one of them happens by chance to be a correct guess [at least temporarily], and the people making the predictions then tell the rest of us: “See! We told you!”, without also admitting that all their other predictions turned out to be wrong, then reasonable people will correctly deduce that they are afflicted with cognitive dissonance.

tjfolkerts says:
September 6, 2012 at 2:28 pm
You are not very worldly or informed. British spellings are outside your scope apparently. My observation of your behavior is not an ad hom. Trying to distance yourself from your pwning, I see.

“Everyone has the right to be stupid, but comrade MacDonald abuses the privilege.” ~ Leon Trotsky
==============================
I don’t care what he said about you Smokey, without you, he would be but a quote.

People posting that the Arctic has NEVER been ice free in the modern record are being disingenuous. There is little or no data as the area was essentially devoid of humans, and the humans that were there had no written records of any kind. To claim it has NEVER (within the written records) happened is completely misleading. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

“You can’t seem to actually argue the facts, so you use a typo as an excuse to avoid addressing the issues. I point out specific facts, with quotes to back up both what I said and what you said, so you resort to ad hominem attacks. [sigh]”

This is hilarious. Do you think no one can read? You avoided answering ANYTHING in the articles. I will wait patiently. Just because you disagree with what was posted, you claim I was not arguing the facts (as you see them). Again, hilarious.

Why, lookee there. Kevin MacDonald is saving all my comments, going back more than three years! Do I send a tingle up Kevin’s leg? Is he [trimmed] in his mom’s basement while re-reading my comments? After I’ve posted more than 17,000 comments, he seems to believe he’s caught me in a contradiction. But stating the obvious — that at some point Arctic ice will recover — isn’t quite the prediction, or the contradiction, that he thinks it is.

Keep on looking for a real contradiction, kevin. You might even find a valid one out of seventeen thousand posts. I am not perfect. But if this is the best you can find, you fail. If anything, I am consistent.

“Everyone has the right to be stupid, but comrade MacDonald abuses the privilege.” ~ Leon Trotsky

You can’t fix stupid. ☺

And I note that in attacking me, KM is avoiding the scientific points I’ve scored. Keep pounding the table; we’ll let the readers decide who argues the science better.

@David Ball – Did you read the section of the Wikipedia article I linked for you? Commercial shipping in 2009 through the Northeast Passage. To be sure, reinforced hulls and escorted by an icebreaker. But the cargo ships were not icebreakers themselves. In any case, check out the accompanying photo. The ice breaker is steaming ahead of them… through open water. Big change from the Sedov getting stuck in the same area for two years, through the summer, in ice.

The Arctic has never been ice free. It isn’t today. But it might be very soon, and that would be a very big change.

Mosher, the Hudson’s bay data is all archived. There are meticulous records and data points collected over the nearly 400 years that they were kept. The Hudson’s Bay company was doing some of the best science in the world at the time. A global experiment to map the transit of Venus in 1796 was accomplished, so try not to mislead the good denizen’s of WUWT?

Newspaper articles my ass. My guess is that you are in a new income tax bracket.

Spot on, Mosher nowadays is all about hot air, non factual statements and BS. For a long time now he seems to have exhibited zero integrity in issues which threaten the CO2 = AGW and everything that happens in the world is due to AGW school of thought.

I notice the brain-free cherry pickers from skeptical science spend a lot of time read posts and comments on WUWT only to then mis-represent them on their FB site !! Why is that ?? Oh sorry the answer to my question is in my question !!

And I note that in attacking me, KM is avoiding the scientific points I’ve scored.

Of course, I’m not going to be advised on science by a man who repeatedly contrived to fail to differentiate between mass and area.

Looks more like he got bored with your repetitious obtuseness and lack of scientific rigor. You’re continually saying Antarctica is losing mass, while Antarctica is gaining ice area as Smokey was showing. How are both true? You never commented on the potential discrepancy, which an inquiring scientific mind should have noticed.

Zwally and Giovinetto’s reassessment also included a challenge to some assumptions, substituting field measurements and making ‘preferred estimates’. These took account of the uncertainties inherent in the various techniques. Their reanalysis provides much lower estimates of net change in ice, ranging from +27 to -40 billion tons per year. For 1992 – 2001 they are prepared to go even further, estimating a loss of only 31 billion tons per year. These still sound like huge numbers, but to put it in perspective, 2400 billion tons of snow falls in Antarctica each year, so we’re dealing with a gain or loss in the range +1.1 to -1.7%.

So Antarctica could have either a positive or negative ice mass balance.

So which was it, you did insufficient research thus didn’t find this paper that nullified your claim (for me the Googling was somewhat easy),

Or did you deliberately cherry-pick and mention the “alarming” paper while not mentioning this non-alarming work?

(BTW, if you get CA Assistant you’ll have a handy Preview button so you can avoid making stupid HTML mistakes like leaving out a left angle bracket.)

People posting that the Arctic has NEVER been ice free in the modern record are being disingenuous. There is little or no data as the area was essentially devoid of humans, and the humans that were there had no written records of any kind. To claim it has NEVER (within the written records) happened is completely misleading. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Are you seriously putting forward the idea that the Arctic has been ice-free, but we didn’t happen to be looking at it when it happened? That after asking for scientific evidence of a natural cycle in Arctic sea ice area dipping as low as it is today (perhaps 1/3 ice covered, mostly ice-free along the coasts), and being offered Australian newspaper clippings and pictures of submarines as evidence, you are responding that the absence of evidence cannot be counted against your argument?

Yes, I am suffering cognitive dissonance. How can you consider that position scientific? We also have an absence of evidence of UFOs releasing farts into the atmosphere to increase the methane content. In fact, the number of things for which we have absence of evidence is quite literally infinite.

Since you’ve referred to written records, I’ve been assuming that your definition of ‘modern’ is within the last thousand years. If you intended to include the entire Holocene, you could have simply referenced http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6043/747.abstract (a readable precis is here http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=24890&news_item=5634 ). As you can read, the hypothesis advanced to explain the ice-free Arctic at that time is a natural cycle, the cycle of solar irradiance due to changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt. But I don’t think you can claim that the same cycle is responsible for today’s conditions.

At the same time, this article shows that even when literate humans are not staring at the ocean, evidence is accumulating.

So what is this cycle? What is its length? What is its cause? What are the error bars?

You know — the one that says:“These reconstructions (of sea ice before the satellite era) have no value.”
andIf you can’t measure accurately with satellites, it’s impossible from the historic record.

Your own article says that it is “impossible” for you to use historical records to compare earlier eras to current conditions. That’s pretty much 180 degrees from your claim that you had “EXACTLY” shown a previous year (1817) was similar to the current decade’s conditions.

I was at least giving you the benefit of the doubt and accepting your one lone report of one lone region as a data point, and then simply asking you to provide further data to support your claim.

Interesting – last time I posted here I got a password sign in from colorado.edu, the website hosting NSIDC data. Intrigued I clicked on the NSIDC data page at ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/ and got the same authentic box asking me,

“REPLY: Wasn’t a thesis, just a question. But we know we aren’t allowed to ask questions, so enjoy your moment rooting for less ice. – Anthony”

I’m not rooting for less ice, I’m just not hiding my head in the sand pretending that a blip in one day’s ice would mean that the ice might have “turned a corner”. It shows your willingness to hand-wave away this year’s record melt based on the flimsiest “logic”. Not as bad as Joe Bastardi’s claiming that there’s been a big uptick in ice this week (based on his misreading of a graph marked “Sea Surface Temperature” instead of looking at the one that actually showed ice extent), but not much better. The “smell of climate desperation”, indeed.

Smokey – perhaps it was deleted because it was wrong? Do you really think that all those different agencies measuring arctic ice are in a conspiracy together to lie to us? For what purpose? To get those oil executives all excited at the prospect of exploring for more oil in an arctic with less ice and then laugh at them as the freeze up?

For some reason my last post seems to have vanished without the ‘your post is in moderation’ note so I’ll try again. Please delete this if it is a duplication.

Smokey, perhaps they deleted that chart because it was wrong?

The alternative view is to think that all those different agencies that measure arctic ice are in cahoots to trick the oil companies into thinking they can explore the arctic for oil and then laugh at them as they freeze up. Doesn’t sound very likely.

[Reply: Your last post was rescued from the spam folder. It contained the word ‘conspiracy’, which is why it was automatically sent to spam. ~dbs, mod.]

The natural ebb and flow of Arctic sea ice has been going on for millennia, including during the past hundred years. So explain to us what the problem is if Arctic ice completely disappears.

All the arm waving and wild-eyed predictions of doom should have a scientific basis. But no one ever explains exactly what they believe will happen if the ice melts. Won’t it just freeze up again next winter?

Put your predictions here, in writing. Then we will review whether you were right or wrong. So far, you’ve been wrong about just about everything. One more mistake shouldn’t matter too much. You have only so much credibility to lose, before you have none at all. Since you’re at that point now, make your predictions.

“Robert Murphy [or anyone else]
…
So explain to us what the problem is if Arctic ice completely disappears.”

I notice you don’t have anything to say against what I actually posted, just goal-post moving. Nonetheless, if the arctic sea ice completely disappears in the summer, it will greatly lower albedo, further increasing warming. It will devastate the wildlife the needs the sea ice to live. It will change long standing weather patterns. You claim that “no one ever explains exactly what they believe will happen if the ice melts”, but of course you know that’s not true.

“So far, you’ve been wrong about just about everything”
I have been? Where? When have you ever been right that I should be concerned with your judgment?

That prediction is far too vague. Further, at high latitudes water reflects almost all incoming solar radiation, thus albedo is a non-issue. And the claims of wildlife being affected, besides being extraordinarily vague, remind me of exactly the same predictions being made prior to the ANWR pipeline construction. It was supposed to ‘devastate’ the caribou herds. That turned out to be complete nonsense.

When I wrote that ‘you’ have been wrong about just about everything, I meant the plural you: the alarmist crowd in general. Sorry for the misunderstanding. But that is still a fact: Sea level rise, runaway global warming, climate disruption, and all the rest of the nonsense simply has not happened. ‘You’ were wrong about everything. Why should it be any different now?

So make your specific predictions. We’ll see if they happen. But past experience says this will be just another false alarm.

@David Ball – I’m grasping at straws when you argue that the absence of data supports your claim?? There is no data either way when I just linked you to a journal article in Science?? Which is it, man? Pictures of submarines and newspaper clippings are scientific evidence, there is no scientific evidence, or scientific evidence is unnecessary?

And how long is that natural cycle?

@Smokey – nice chart! Of course, its missing the last two months of data… and the red line means nothing… and the non-existent linear trend line is decidedly negative… other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

The Antarctic holds more than ten times the volume of ice than the Arctic. Since Antarctic ice volume is growing, the cause of the [entirely natural] Arctic decline cannot be due to GHG emissions.

The causes of Arctic ice decline are most likely wind, changing ocean currents, and storms, among others. But the alarmist crowd wants everyone to believe that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause. As I have shown here, that belief is discredited. CO2 has no way of knowing which ice is Arctic, and which is Antarctic. And we have a long way to go before the Arctic is ice-free.

And even if the Arctic becomes ice-free, so what? It’s happened before, routinely and repeatedly. Today is no different.

And did I blame you? Wasn’t your fault NSIDC went offline, no apologies warranted.

But in a general sense, the site should avoid “live” images when showing a “feature of the moment”. I’ve dug up an article from the archives before where what was supposed to be shown was obliterated by new data.

Up in the original post, both DMI and JAXA have live charts. Do they still show what was discussed? If so, for how much longer?

Don’t forget the “data revisionism”. Best to freeze such charts when posted.

That paper includes a model of an ice-free month (Aug 15 – Sep 15) with these results:

Using this ice-free-summer scenario, the estimated radiative forcing caused by the albedo reduction due to the lost ice is 0.29 W m−2 . This provides a more realistic idea of the potential impact of the SIAF caused by changes to Arctic sea ice that are predicted to occur
this century by many GCMs.

That forcing is globally and annually averaged, so that it can be compared with other forcings, but in reality it would be delivered to a relatively small part of the planet in a relatively short time.

The consequence would be destabilized NH weather, especially in the winter. Warm Arctic, Cold Continents.

But this has all happened before, right Smokely? It is a natural cycle, but for the life of me, I can’t remember what you said was the length of that cycle. And its cause… and the evidence… and the error bars…

And if you’ve got that Mann quote handy, about him being happy about malaria, just send it on!

The Sea Ice page taking forever to load on dial-up with many timeouts and how I have to “view image” to get individual graphs loaded into the cache so the page finally gets done… That’s me still being on dial-up, and likely can’t be improved until someone has a separate site somewhere with auto-running scripts to make as-displayed versions so the original super-sized images don’t need to be downloaded. Good thing there’s hardly anyone viewing the page on smartphones with non-unlimited data plans, who might complain about having to download many megabytes instead of so many kilobytes…

dvunkannon says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:23 pm
“@David Ball – I’m grasping at straws when you argue that the absence of data supports your claim??
I said that there is not enough data to support either claim.

dvunkannon says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:23 pm
I provided an empirical observation by the young captain of a whaling vessel, whose very lives depended on sea faring knowledge and experience. To dismiss this is both foolhardy and non scientific. There is very little data from the Arctic region that goes back very far, so you are making claims that are less supportable than my position.

Tim Folkerts says:
September 7, 2012 at 8:17 am
Please support your position with data. I looked back through the thread and could not find any to support your position that what is happening in the Arctic is unusual (based on a reasonable timescale).If you are talking 30 years, that seems like a very very small sampling of the 4.5 billion years of earths existence. It seems that the data point I provided, is still more than you have.

Now you might be starting to understand. The current Arctic ice levels have occurred repeatedly in the past. There is ample evidence of that fact, which I have regularly posted.

You, on the other hand, have no scientific evidence showing that the current Arctic conditions are unprecedented. None. You have no such evidence. So even though my voluminous eyewitness accounts are pre-satellite observations, they easily trump your evidence-free beliefs.

Don’t be silly. The satellite record only goes back to 1979. “All time” goes back at least a little bit farther than that, no?

And there is more than a little Arctic ice. The Arctic is far from being ice-free. And even if it were ice-free… so what? It’s happened before, and it will happen again. Human activity has nothing to do with it. That is only an evidence-free belief that religious climate alarmists have.

You’re continually saying Antarctica is losing mass, while Antarctica is gaining ice area as Smokey was showing. How are both true? You never commented on the potential discrepancy, which an inquiring scientific mind should have noticed.

I didn’t think it required an “inquiring scientific mind“, one even briefly acquainted with geometry would’ve done; an ice cube 10cm wide by 10cm long by 10cm deep has a smaller area, but a greater volume and mass than and ice cube 11cm wide by 11cm long by 8cm deep. Further, I was discussing the Antarctic continent, Smokey‘s replies referenced the Antarctic oceans; he was discussing a different metric (which is why I described it as a cherry pick and why Smokey, realising he was arguing a straw man, ran away). I thought these things were too obvious to comment on, I’m sorry if I over estimated your intelligence.

@David Ball – I’ll make a third request that you read the Funder paper I linked to. It describes field work and modeling to support the claim of substantially ice-free conditions in the Arctic 8,500 – 6,000 years BP. That claim got the paper very favorable comments here on WUWT last summer. It is true that the paper doesn’t support an ice-free Arctic for the last 3,000 years or so, but evidence is evidence. It isn’t a case of no evidence either way.

@Smokey – You write:

The current Arctic ice levels have occurred repeatedly in the past. There is ample evidence of that fact, which I have regularly posted.

What, the submarine pic? Goddard’s clipping file? Let’s repeat ourselves – where is the evidence of an ice-free Northeast Passage? Submarine pic? Nope. Clippings? Nope. How long is this natural cycle? Cause? Evidence? Error bars? Hey, look at the ice in Antarctica is not an answer.

REPLY: Wasn’t a thesis, just a question. But we know we aren’t allowed to ask questions, so enjoy your moment rooting for less ice. – Anthony
—————————————————————————————————————-

And thats just what the oh-so-concerned-about-the-Arctic warmists are doing. They are overjoyed about this. The only thing that would make them happier right now is if hundreds of dead polar bears started washing up on shore.

Right you are. And as always, neither dvunkannon nor MacDonald has any scientific evidence showing that the current Arctic situation is unprecedented. They operate based strictly on their belief. The observations I posted are not satellite pics, but they are scientific evidence — something true believers do not possess. For them, their evidence-free belief is sufficient. That is why they can never be scientific skeptics — the only honest kind of scientists.

I didn’t think it required an “inquiring scientific mind“, one even briefly acquainted with geometry would’ve done; an ice cube 10cm wide by 10cm long by 10cm deep has a smaller area, but a greater volume and mass than and ice cube 11cm wide by 11cm long by 8cm deep.

Heh. Greater volume, yes, but not necessarily greater mass. This is anecdotal so you’ll write it off as meaningless, to your peril.

This story was told several years ago online. Party was coming up, think it was the Christmas one. Some guy and other techs made the ice, using high-pressure cryonics equipment. The ice was so dense it sank to the bottom of the drinks. And they were getting the non-tech people wondering what the cubes were made of since they were sinking instead of floating… Party reported as ending with the most people still sober ever, people were avoiding consuming their own drinks for some reason.

For the scientific basis of how this could be true and how all water ice is not the same, Wikipedia has a good write-up that hopefully you can follow.

Further, I was discussing the Antarctic continent, Smokey‘s replies referenced the Antarctic oceans; he was discussing a different metric (which is why I described it as a cherry pick and why Smokey, realising he was arguing a straw man, ran away).

Smokey is a regular, thus it’s very likely he already knew about that paper showing it’s uncertain whether Antarctica is gaining or losing land ice.

But Antarctic sea ice has a positive trend, as he was pointing out, indicating conditions at the south end of the planet are favorable for ice growth.

So if precipitation onto Antarctic land is sufficient, as it certainly appears to be, it looks more probable that the volume of Antarctic land ice is increasing than it does otherwise.

Maybe he was hoping you were smart enough to figure that out.

I thought these things were too obvious to comment on, I’m sorry if I over estimated your intelligence.

Speaking about overestimating intelligence…

Regards your comment on September 7, 2012 at 6:34 pm, I already suggested getting CA Assistant to get the Preview to avoid making stupid HTML mistakes, like you just made there. You don’t have to reject everything a skeptic says just because a skeptic said it. It’s not like rejecting everything a heretic or godless heathen says to stay true to your religion.

Kadaka, Well I learned something, referring to Wikipedia and 15 phases of solid H2O.
But as you said ‘anecdotal’. Outside of lab situations, no temp that low or pressure that high I know of. Then again I might learn something else.

dvunkannon says:
September 7, 2012 at 6:52 pm
“@David Ball – I’ll make a third request that you read the Funder paper I linked to. It describes field work and modeling to support the claim of substantially ice-free conditions in the Arctic 8,500 – 6,000 years BP. That claim got the paper very favorable comments here on WUWT last summer. It is true that the paper doesn’t support an ice-free Arctic for the last 3,000 years or so, but evidence is evidence. It isn’t a case of no evidence either way.”

Now that proxies and modeling (sic) are allowed (they weren’t before) this changes what I can bring to the table. I can still work within the changing parameters (goal posts) of the alarmists weak( flaccid?) arguments. Big waste of time arguing with these tap dancers, but I bet a lot of people reading this read learned something.

In reply to some people saying that the recent record-breaker is entirely a result of weather, I find it hard to agree when the lowest record-breaking minimums are grouped at one end of the data period.

I have been following WUWT? closely for many years now. Can you not figure out that I have read that paper? Have you read the comments? Some highly educated people ( I am not one of them, as I have NO formal education) posted on that thread. If you read the comments you will find that if there are any flaws in that paper, even though favourable, will be exposed. That is why WUWT? is sooooo much better than echo chambers like RealPrimate or SkepticalnonScience where I am NOT allowed to post. Try on a tin-foil hat, you may enjoy it. The science and humour are so much better here.

Smokey says: ‘The Antarctic holds more than ten times the volume of ice than the Arctic. Since Antarctic ice volume is growing, the cause of the [entirely natural] Arctic decline cannot be due to GHG emissions.”

How many times do I have to call you on this???

Yes the Antarctic holds ten times the ice … IF YOU COUNT LAND-BASED ICE.
And yes, Antarctic ice is declining (slightly) … IF YOU ONLY LOOK AT SEA ICE.

You continue to repeat this claim, when, clearly you are comparing apple and oranges.

I’d be happy if you said “The Antarctic holds A BIT MORE SEA ice volume of ice than the Arctic.” I’d be happy if you said “The Antarctic holds more than ten times the volume of ice than the Arctic (WHEN LAND ICE IS INCLUDED). Since Antarctic ice volume is growingdeclining (WHEN LAND ICE IS INCLUDED) …”

Heck, I’d even accept “reports about Antarctic ice volumes are inconclusive” since some report included error bars for some periods of time that include the possibility of increasing overall ice volume.

But it is pure “bait and switch” to talk about 10 times the LAND ice and then present data about growing SEA ice.

I don’t put much stock in a report that also claims that “rocky island were seen by his party at the pole”. It seems they were having a hard time knowing what they were seeing. Or do you believe that part of the article too?

In any case, the article says they were flying over the pole in a dirigible. It is well-known now that SURFACE melt water is often present near the poles. It is pretty clear that this is what they were seeing, not true open water.

The point isn’t the Antarctic at all. The central point in the entire debate is that there is no scientific evidence showing that CO2 has anything to do with the entirely natural decline in Arctic ice. History shows that it happens routinely.

That lack of scientific evidence makes a mockery of all the stupid arm-waving over a completely natural event. The alarmist crowd is franticly trying to make a connection between the natural ebb and flow of Arctic ice, and human CO2 emissions — without any evidence. It’s not even a conjecture, it’s nonsense.

The alarmist clique is like a guy sitting in a dark bedroom, absolutely convinced that there is a black cat under the bed. He has no evidence, but he does have an absolutely certain belief in the cat under the bed. He thinks he can even hear it breathing. But when he turns on the light… there is no cat. And there never was.

You do not seem aware of the main goal of modern politics, convincing you Something Bad Will Happen If We Are Not In Charge.

You also do not seem aware of how scientists get funding. It’s hard to get funds to research how nothing bad is happening. They’re easier to get if you convince others Something Bad Is Happening And Something Worse Can Happen If You Don’t Give Us Money To Find Out How Bad It Really Is.

Thus both camps have a vested interest in scaring you, making you worry about the future of your family and you.

Thus both have a vested interest in working together to accomplish that goal, as frequently revealed and discussed here on WUWT.

So forget the science for a moment, calm yourself, and ask yourself some basic questions:

What do they gain by frightening me?

What do I gain by letting them frighten me?

How do I help my family by being frightened?

Hopefully then you’ll understand a common climate skeptic viewpoint:Prove to me that my family and I will benefit by my allowing you to frighten me.

I have presented much in the way of observational evidence to support the fact that the Arctic has pretty recently gone through the same thing that we are seeing now. I have also provided peer reviewed papers stating that the same thing has happened earlier in the Holocene, and to a greater extent.

You, on the other hand, have provided no scientific evidence showing that the current Arctic ice conditions are unprecedented. Thus, you are completely blinkered on the subject. You are arguing from belief, not from science. I think that is because if you were to accept the fact that Arctic ice has frequently declined, just like it is doing now — but during times when CO2 was much lower — your entire argument would be destroyed. And in fact, it is.

David Ball says: “If you are talking 30 years, that seems like a very very small sampling of the 4.5 billion years of earths existence. It seems that the data point I provided, is still more than you have.”

Ah.. now we are actually talking. So let me address this issue.

My position is that:
1) in the “satellite era” (the last ~ 35 years) it is clear that a dramatic decline is taking place. There is significantly less ice each decade than the previous decade.
2) I’ll come back to the “historical era” (~ 1000 AD to 1980 AD) shortly, since it is the most contentious.
3) in the “pre-historic era” (~ 10000 BC to 1000 AD), there were periods near the beginning of that era when the Arctic had much less ice than now … perhaps even ice-free in the summer. But that era had much larger summer Arctic insolation than now, so the “natural cycle” of earth’s orbit that contributed to that era does not apply to this era.
4 ) in the “geologic era”, many things happened — the world went thru eras when it was much warmer and much cooler. The world also was varying in several ways — moving continents and Milankovitch cycles and changing atmospheres. Once again, the conditions were SO different then, that comparisons of current melting to these times are pointless.

So what about that “historical era” — basically since the vikings started exploring and documenting their travels until satellites routinely started flying over the poles?

Certainly there have been times when the sea ice advanced and times when it retreated. The world’s climate — and hence sea ice — was still influenced by solar cycles and El Ninos and volcanoes and …. It seems that from ~ 1900 – ~ 1940, the ice did retreat some — but I have seen nothing that suggests that the ice in 1940’s was similar to the most recent decade. The question thus comes back to my challenge:

Give it your best shot — which year and which specific eyewitness accounts support Arctic-wide melting similar to this whole past decade?

Did the retreats during the past ~ 1000 years ever match the retreat seen now?

You give one specific account of one whaling boat — as I said, that is a good start. If we take the account at face value, the ice was different by “2,000 square leagues” or about 60,000 sq km.

In the satellite era, we have records that show:
* The Greenland Sea melts and re-freezes twice this area each month during the spring and fall, so if the observations were even a couple weeks different in time, the ice would be expected to vary by this much.
* It is not unusual for the ice to be 60,000 km^2 different from one year to the next even during the same month (even back in the 1980’s when the ice was still relatively large). Even if the observations by the good captain were on the same dates at the same places, the variations are not unusual.
In other words, the captain could well to be observing natural variations for the Greenland Sea where BOTH numbers are well above current values. We simply have no way of knowing 1) the values before 1816, 2) the values in 816 & 1817 3) the accuracy of the measurements.

You claim I have presented no evidence, but in fact I have presented a LOT of evidence — the fact that repeated searches for both the NW Passage and the NE Passage failed to find open waters like are observed now. Given the economic and military significance of such routes, there was considerable incentive. If conditions were similar to the past 5 years, then sailing thru should have been relatively easy (I think — but I am hardly an expert on sailing in Arctic water). Instead, even the expeditions that finally did succeed ~ 100 years ago faced ice during the summer and took 2-3 years to actually make it thru.

I’s be willing to consider FURTHER evidence, especially with specific longitude and latitudes of ice.

In a simple calculation, the odds of the last 6 years all being the lowest September minimum in a random scenario, is 1 in 1,344,904. That’s the chance that the last 6 years of minimums are purely a result of weather fluctuations.

“2) I’ll come back to the “historical era” (~ 1000 AD to 1980 AD) shortly, since it is the most contentious.”

No, you are just trying desperately to make it contentious.

You admit that Arctic ice ebbs and flows. I have posted photos of Arctic ice that show as much decline as currently. I have posted dozens of accounts, with quotations from people who live in the far North. Two facts are crystal clear:

1. Arctic ice has repeatedly declined, some times more than now. Naturally. And

You are sqirming around like a slippery eel, muddying the waters with wild-eyed nonsense. A few thousand years ago the sun was that much dimmer? And I suppose that the sun only gets bright when it’s shining on the Arctic? Please. Post that on RealClimate, they eat up that nonsense.

Tim, you are simply a dyed-in-the-wool True Believer, and no facts will ever change your mind.

I’m not posting that as evidence, and by itself it doesn’t prove there was an ice-free Antarctic. But it would be tough to make a map that accurate of land that is now covered with ice and surrounded by sea ice.

Finally, the idea of a static climate is a Michael Mann fabrication. It is not the truth, and never was. Any objective person looking at Holocene temperatures would conclude that plenty of ice has melted over the past 10,000 years. To believe otherwise is alarmist nonsense.

“In a simple calculation, the odds of the last 6 years all being the lowest September minimum in a random scenario, is 1 in 1,344,904. That’s the chance that the last 6 years of minimums are purely a result of weather fluctuations.”

Preposterous. But I’ll play along: since you appear to know the causes of Arctic ice fluctuations, why don’t you post them here for everyone to see? Make sure you include the odds and percentages of each factor. Who knows, you might win the next Nobel prize in Climastrology.☺

I suppose it never occurred to you that those six years might all be part of the same natural cycle.

Wow. You must own an ACME goal post mover. I still don’t see any evidence of the calibre you are asking me for. You have admitted the sea-ice ebbs and flows. The fossilized coniferous trees on Ellesmere Island (although they are 50 million years old and at the same latitude they were fossilized ) are more than empirical evidence for a warm Arctic in the past. It is called variability as it fluctuates due to differing variables. You KNOW this.

Now what I want you to show me why it is different this time (although it isn’t).

Wow, barry is getting knowledge wholesale from absolutely zero data. He (or rather the puppeteer he is guided by) is making up numbers for his models that are just NOT known. Mathematics only helps if the values imputed are KNOWN.

Proposition: The behaviour of Arctic sea ice is purely a result of weather variation. There are no long-term factors creating a trend. The trend is just an artifact of random variation (weather). The fact that the last 6 years of September minimums have all been the lowest in the satellite record is just a coincidence.

Data: 34 years of September minimums – I’ve included 2012. The 6 lowest extents (and areas, according to NSIDC) have all occurred in the last 6 years of the period.

Test: Calculate the odds of the 6 lowest numbers occurring all together at one end of the sequence. This is essentially a lotto situation, where to win you have to get the exact 6 numbers, in any order, of 34 possible.

Then why keep bringing it up — especially since you apparently KNOW you are disingenuously conflating land ice and sea ice?

“I have also provided peer reviewed papers stating that the same thing has happened earlier in the Holocene, and to a greater extent. ”
Yes, I know that. And in return, I have repeatedly reminded you that insolation was greater then, so less summer Arctic was would be EXPECTED 10,000 years ago. Are you arguing that the conditions 10,000 years ago still hold and can explain the CURRENT decline? Or that conditions from 10 million years ago or 100 million years ago hold and can explain the current rapid decline?

“I have presented much in the way of observational evidence to support the fact that the Arctic has pretty recently gone through the same thing that we are seeing now.”
“Presented” is a pretty generous verb to use. You have made broad references to reams of newspaper clippings. However …
1) you steadfastly refuse to make any conclusions about any specific year when your evidence supports that the Arctic was similar to now.
2) when you DO make specific reference to one newspaper clipping (September 7, 2012 at 12:49 pm), it is clear that you don’t understand that your evidence is for SURFACE ice as observed from the air, not open water.
So far, I have not seen one specific bit of evidence that you have presented that strongly supports your hypothesis of conditions in the historical past (the last 1000-2000 years) were similar to today. Every time I look closely, the evidence is sadly lacking. The conclusion seem to be that you yourself never look closely.

So show that I am wrong. With your reams of evidence it should be easy. Pick one year that you think was similar to the last few years. Or even pick a half dozen articles throughout the past few hundred years that you think strongly support your position that some other year in the last ~ 1000 years was similar to this year.

PS I am not currently addressing any question of what damage this loss of ice might cause, nor what caused current or past changes. I am simply asking you to either provide evidence to support THIS claim, or to admit that you don’t have sufficient evidence to support THIS claim. We can address subsequent issues once we have come to

CO2 is the only possible explanation. The sun is at minimum. The Earths orbit is at minimums. Every other process/variability from PDO to ENSO is outlasted even just by the trend in Arctic sea ice….

And what is the position of folks here? That the Antarctic has more ice…. avoiding are we?

The Arctic is going to be ice free for the first time in millennia. Your familyneed not be frightened. Just stop making excuses and do something about it so your children (and my children) and grandchildren and family down the line have a chance.

Chris Alemany says:
September 8, 2012 at 4:31 pm
You are not familiar with WUWT, are you? You haven’t understood anything here. Your fear-mongering is not based on evidence. I am just as concerned about the future as you are. Present some evidence or get up to speed.

(…)
The lowest September extent/area in million sq kms (NSIDC) are;
(…)
Every September after 2006 is lower than 2006.

That’s 34 data points, if you include 2012.

Rookie mistake, extent and area are separate items thus 68 data points. Rankings based on one may not match rankings based on the other.

Can a maths whiz figure out what the odds are of this weather bingo? If there are 34 integers, what are the chances that the first 6 randomly picked will be comprised of the numbers 1 to 6?

Examining extent and area separately, odds of getting the first number you want from the pool is 1/34, except it could be any of six so 6/34.
Next number is 5/33 with pool shrinkage, any of the remaining five from the remaining thirty three. Etc.

In a simple calculation, the odds of the last 6 years all being the lowest September minimum in a random scenario, is 1 in 1,344,904.

That’s the odds of six draws from a 34-count pool matching all six numbers of a list, nothing more.

That’s the chance that the last 6 years of minimums are purely a result of weather fluctuations.

The odds that the previous six years of my life would have the highest percentages of grey hairs on my head would similarly calculate high, yet is true by natural processes. Why can’t the Arctic minimums also be by natural processes?

That is a textbook example of the Argumentum ad Ignorantium fallacy; the argument from ignorance. What Chris is actually saying is: “Since I can’t think of any other explanation, then it must be due to CO2.”

And just “do something about it” is the classic Precautionary Principle. Hey, you might get hit by an asteroid. So ‘do something about it': don’t go outside. Same-same. There is no scientific evidence showing that human activity causes ice loss, so there is no need to “do something”.

Chris, unless/until you can post verifiable scientific evidence showing that the current decline in Arctic sea ice is unprecedented, I don’t think we need to do anything about what is entirely a natural event. My advice: stop scaring yourself.

As for Folkerts, nothing will open his closed mind. Glaciers could move down and bury Chicago under a mile of ice again, and he would still be a believer in CO2=CAGW. [And for the record, I dispute most everything in his latest post.]

I have a slim hope that Chris Alemany has not drunk too much Kool Aid, but is instead only repeating talking points from alarmist sources. If he simply accepts the scientific method and its corollary, the null hypothesis, the scales will fall from his eyes. The scare is all motivated by money, Chris. Really. All of it.

For those rooting for an ice free Arctic, the ice controls rainfall and weather patterns in the U.S. Less ice or no ice and we could see a lot more droughts and crop failures like this summer. I don’t look forward to the U.S. being forced to import most of it’s food in the future.

No smokey… The only ones arguing from ignorance here are the ones ignoring the data and the reams of research. And that ain’t me.

I’m not going to post the evidence because you should be a big enough boy to find it yourself. Im not getting into the nauseating circular arguments that sustains your conspiracy theories. I don’t fall for that never ending loop of a tactic. i know all the links have veen posted here and all you will do is ignore them.

The sorry truth is this. It’s not about money, it’s about science. You actually follow the science and there is no other conclusion but AGW. I know I know, no one wants to believe an actual scientist in their field these days unless they agree with them. But one day Mr. Watts will have no choice but admit to the world he’s either been duped or been the duper. Such is life.

Meanwhile, the Arctic melts and weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere will (continue to ) change to something we have absolutely no recorded history to be able to figure out.

In a simple calculation, the odds of the last 6 years all being the lowest September minimum in a random scenario, is 1 in 1,344,904.

According to RSS, UAH, Hadcrut3, and Hadsst2, the record year was 1998. And 2012 is NOT going to set a record on any of these sets. Now presumably when more CO2 is continually being added, the chances of a future year beating 1998 should be more than 50%, right? However if we assume only a 50% chance that any given year could beat 1998, the odds of 1998 NOT being beaten by any of these 4 data sets in 14 years would be 2^14 = 1 in 16384. Is that correct?

Well Chris, since you are a fan of data, show me data that says weather patterns continue to change to something we have absolutely no recorded history to be able to figure out. According to all AGW scientists who have published research on weather patterns, weather patterns have yet to go beyond climate boundaries, meaning that weather patterns are still within climate parameters within each climate region. Unless you have data that says otherwise.

Once again you fail to produce any scientific evidence showing that the current Arctic conditions are unprecedented. That is because there is no such evidence. The only evidence extant shows that Arctic ice has declined similarly — and more — in the past. [And note that your pal reviewed papers do not qualify as ‘scientific evidence’.]

So saying you’re not going to post any evidence simply means that you have no such evidence to post. You’re winging it. But that doesn’t fly here at the internet’s “BestScience” site. Put up or shut up is the operative phrase here.

And if you don’t believe the CAGW scare is about the money [$BILLION$ every year in federal grants handed out – and they don’t give those grants to scientists who honestly point out that what is happening now has happened to an even greater extent in the past], then you are being truly credulous.

So keep on scaring yourself, since you seem to like it so much. But don’t fool yourself; it certainly isn’t science. Your baseless conjecture is only your belief, nothing more.

Chris Alemany says:
September 8, 2012 at 5:45 pm
There is no data to back up your assertion. The Arctic has melted before. There is no link between the current decline and Co2. I am not asking for much. Just something that shows that mankinds Co2 output is what is causing the current melt. There is no evidence to support the proposition that this melt is unprecedented.

Chris, the affects of ENSO events can linger around for a long time. It takes years for warmed pools to move into other areas on the globe. You can see the echos when studying anomalies by time and anomalies by time and lattitude.

“But one day Mr. Watts will have no choice but admit to the world he’s either been duped or been the duper. Such is life.”
================
Nice try,
Now tell me why you even have a forum to spew this crap.

Pamela Gray says:
September 8, 2012 at 6:25 pm
Good point. Also a large storm at the right time (as we saw this year) can easily break up even very thick ice. The arm waving by alarmists is quite impressive.

Enso events do not correlate with global temperature but they do with regional weather pattern variations within regional climate boundaries. That tells me that ENSO events can and do affect and drive temperature trends.

All one has to do is look at analogue years, which still out-perform dynamical model scenarios three months out. The Arctic is the last place oceanic currents carry the result of ENSO events before their return trip to the equatorial belt. Because of amplification (due to concentration in a relatively smaller space) the melt makes sense as a response to natural events. In fact, if it were not melting, I would be worried. Why? Because some other stronger factor than the oceans (which have by far the greatest capacity to move all that ENSO heat around) is overwhelming incredibly strong intrinsic natural events. That’s when we should all panic. That stronger factor would be so big we could not miss it. There would be no arguing. It would be hitting us all in the face. Think something as hard to ignore as the totally imaginary alien ships in Independence Day.

If this were the best science site in the world it’d actually have, you know, actually produced science. Oh wait. It did a bit..I think it was called….. BEST. But you didn’t like the results of those either, so you don’t talk about that now….

The faxt that anyone at all can look at The billions of tonnes of CO2 that humanity has pumped into the atmosphere and say with a straight face it has no effect is pretty stunning really.

Barry – Red Noise-
I have articles from the early 1970’s warning of as much as a 13% increase in Arctic ice in one year. –and many years trending upwards. Dire Warnings of a coming ice age.
Same thing— Red Noise.
Look at Cryosphere Today. Total Sea Ice has remained about the same. Ocean Currents,
various oscillations, currents causing movement of more saline water and other causes seem to be moving some heat from the South to the North. South Africa having the most snow they have had in a long while (or any snow at all) might be related. Nothing definite.
Read Judith Curry at Climate Etc. Good Blog, She talks about the uncertainly monster.
Anyone with a science background should always be hesitant about being very certain.

No smokey… The only ones arguing from ignorance here are the ones ignoring the data and the reams of research. And that ain’t me.

Chris, I used to worry about global warming too. I too worry about the environment, know full well how badly we humans can screw it up. At the site I was hanging out at, there were a lot of people who were very worried.

So I researched it. Hit up Wikipedia, read the summaries of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, many other things…

And found global warming wasn’t going to be fixed in five years, or ten. Or even in my lifetime. The effects from the already-released emissions would continue for many centuries to come. Even if we shut down civilization as we knew it, the CO₂ would remain elevated for centuries, the continuing warming of the oceans would release more CO₂…

The warming couldn’t be avoided. It was happening, and would continue to happen for centuries, even if we stopped all anthropogenic emissions right now.

Logically, especially with the timescales involved, the only real choice was adaptation. Wait to see how bad it gets, make changes then.

It’s a choice people make all the time. People get old, accidents and diseases happen. So why not make your house fully handicap accessible, right now? Someone could be in a wheelchair someday, so put in ramps, widen the doorways, have low cabinets and a sit-down shower, if there’s more than one story then install an elevator or at least a stair lift… Blindness is possible, have a clean floor layout, no throw-rugs a foot could catch on, put Braille stickers on appliances… Could go deaf, so flashing smoke alarms chained to lights that flash in all rooms, which automatically call one of those security companies that will dispatch fire crews in case the alarms are missed…

Why do we even build houses that are only for able-bodied people? Make the initial investment up front. Heck, make full handicap accessibility a government mandate for all construction. Think of it as an insurance policy. Sure it’ll cost a bit, with unending maintenance costs. But if you ever need that stuff, won’t you be glad you have it? Won’t it have all been worth it?

But we humans don’t do that. We wait, see what happens, then make any changes required. And then only as much as required right then.

So I stopped worrying about global warming. The mandate of evolution is to adapt or die. Humans should well be able to adapt to the effects of global warming as they happen, with our minds and our technology.

And once I read the research and stopped worrying, I wondered why so many were saying we had to act now.
“We must enact this legislation now to stop global warming.”
“There are only five years left to act, contact your elected representatives today.”
“Our organization is dedicated to fighting global warming, send us your donation before it’s too late.”
Didn’t these people read up on the science?

Over time I noticed the message getting shriller. The consequences of inaction were greater than they thought, the urgency was greater than anyone expected. As the public continued caring less, the Catastrophic part of global warming, the absolute certainty of unimaginable disaster, kept getting larger, more imminent.

I had read the science. I had studied and accepted the data, those reams of research. Global warming would go on for centuries regardless of what we do. So why are these politicians saying if we vote them in and they enact their legislation, it’ll all be fixed? Why are the environmental groups insisting donations to them are urgently needed right now, or the planet is screwed?

Then I found this site. I learned about the natural cycles. About how screwed up the temperature records are. About the natural collusion between politicians, scientists, and environmental advocates, all seeking power and money.

And now you should see the problem. Alarmism sells. It’s how print media brings in readers and TV broadcasters bring in viewers. It’s how politicians get votes. It’s how environmental groups get government funding and donations. You give them the power over you they say is required, you let them take as much money as needed out of your wallet, or bad things will happen.

But there is no quick fix. That’s what their science said. It’ll go on for centuries regardless.

Plus, we here in the developed world have options. We can build more nuclear plants to replace the dependable baseload energy we now get from coal. We can build more efficient homes, vehicles, and appliances. Sure, we can do our part to reduce CO₂ emissions.

But the developing world is not playing along. And why should they? We built our wealth on cheap fossil fuel energy. We have the resources to adapt to whatever the effects arise from global warming. They don’t. Why shouldn’t they have the opportunity to be prosperous that we had? Sure, the different global “carbon control” plans call for giving them money in compensation, which is simply paying their governments to ensure their ordinary citizens live miserable and short lives.

To people who need basic refrigeration for food preservation, and clinics and hospitals that need reliable 24/7 power to save lives, they must suffice with the vagaries of sunlight and wind? For simple and productive manufacturing, the sort that lifts local people out of poverty, instead of the power of a diesel engine or coal-fired steam boiler, they need to destroy many acres of forest and farmland to set up solar panels and windmills?

It is your choice to give up power and money to those telling you ever-scary stories, who say they must act now to stop global warming now when their own science said it will irrevocably go on for centuries. You may tell yourself that you have not been frightened by their scary stories, that you have boldly chosen to take a proactive stance against a known danger.

But know that when you agree to their demands to save your own children, you are agreeing with the condemning of someone else’s children. Is that made easier for you by their being faceless and nameless, people that you will never meet nor even see?

Are you smart enough to realize that when politicians and professional activists say these things must be done for the greater good, it will be for their own good first and foremost?

“Good point. Also a large storm at the right time (as we saw this year) can easily break up even very thick ice. The arm waving by alarmists is quite impressive.”

But this wasn’t just any storm, was it? You see, this low pressure was the deepest summer arctic storm ever recorded. n fact I’m wrong in calling it a storm as it was classed as a Cylone. These don’t usually happen in the summer and when they do, they aren’t half the strength and they used to develop further South.

There’s research done out there explaining why summer storms like this will become more frequent as the ice goes completely… do the leg work :)

Rookie mistake, extent and area are separate items thus 68 data points. Rankings based on one may not match rankings based on the other.

I know extent and area are two different things. I mentioned them at the same time because in the 34-years NSIDC database, the last 6 years have all been the lowest September sea ice in both extent AND area. My subtext was, “take your pick.”

The odds that the previous six years of my life would have the highest percentages of grey hairs on my head would similarly calculate high, yet is true by natural processes. Why can’t the Arctic minimums also be by natural processes?

Your analogy has an inbuilt trend – aging – which causes more grey hairs to appear. It reinforces my point (see below).

Me:

In a simple calculation, the odds of the last 6 years all being the lowest September minimum in a random scenario, is 1 in 1,344,904.

You:

That’s the odds of six draws from a 34-count pool matching all six numbers of a list, nothing more.

I think it’s exactly the right test for the postulation, which is based on comments here implying that any trend in Arctic sea ice is purely a result of weather fluctuations. Below is the posit again – how would you improve on my method?

If recent record-breaking September sea ice minima are purely the result of random weather fluctuations, calculate the odds that the 6 lowest September minima would all occur in the last 6 years of 34.

No, in a chaotic system we expect behaviour like this, even if there is a long-term trend. That is what makes the observation about Arctic sea ice minima for the last 6 years such a clincher – there is a definite trend that is a result of more than just random weather (most people agree, I think, but not everyone here).

Jesuswept says:
September 9, 2012 at 3:02 am
This is the point of the whole discussion. I have provided some evidence that this is not unprecedented. Alarmists need to show that it is different this time. I also provided a natural explanation that requires NO mysterious Co2 connection. I am waiting for someone to show why it is different this time (even though it isn’t). I have done more research than you could possibly imagine. I have looked at ALL proxies, all reconstructions, the historic records. Held my nose through Hansen’s stuff (mysterious adjustments that all seem to go in the direction required to support his theory), Mann’s stuff ( some big questions not only in the proxies used, but also the statical method applied). I have read Lindzen’s papers, Spenser’s papers. All of it.

I suspect that you have only read papers (and other info) that supports your assertion and nothing else. I have seen NOTHING in all those papers that can truly support the position that it is all down to Co2. In fact it smells to high heaven that those touting Co2 as the cause are SO certain this is how it works, yet if you understand their own papers, it has been way oversold, and the uncertainties have not been overcome.

Read Anthony’s paper and look at how the data is collected. Look at the pictures of the stations. This shakes the very foundations of the data. The lack of weather stations and data throughout the world (especially the Polar regions, where a huge amount of “smoothing” of the data is done) calls into question the validity of a “global temperature”. You do know what “smoothing” is, don’t you?

As for doing it “for the children”. I have children, so do not try that one on me. I am as concerned about their future and their children’s future as you are. I have ideas using technology that will make the future a bright, clean, healthy place for all. My future does not include the continued use of fossil fuels, or the raping of the earth (as enviro-nuts say). To get there, we need cheap abundant energy. Skyrocketing the price of energy will not solve the problem, but only hurt those who are living in or close to poverty. The wealthy will be able to absorb this cost no problem. Does that make sense?. It does to the wealthy and powerful. Hmmmmm, …..

Nice handle by the way. I am not a religious person (and I don’t think you are either), but your handle tells me a lot about your mindset.

“If recent record-breaking September sea ice minima are purely the result of random weather fluctuations, calculate the odds that the 6 lowest September minima would all occur in the last 6 years of 34.”

You need to prove this is a “record breaker”. That is all I am asking. Your calculation is meaningless if you do not.

The faxt (sic) that anyone at all can look at The billions of tonnes of CO2 that humanity has pumped into the atmosphere and say with a straight face it has no effect is pretty stunning really.

No!
The fact that nature emits at least 34 molecules of CO2 for each molecule of CO2 emitted from the total of all human activities makes it pretty stunning that anybody would think there would be a discernible effect from the CO2 humans have pumped into the atmosphere.

It is more than pretty stunning: it is is astonishing because CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere (i.e. less than 0.04%) that is essential for life on earth, and there has been tens of times more CO2 in the atmosphere when life flourished. But it is now being asserted that a small variation in the emission of this trace gas would convert it from being the stuff of life into a harbinger of Armageddon.

The assertion may be true because there is insufficient evidence to completely refute it, but there is no evidence to support it, and it is clearly an extraordinary suggestion.

IMO one of the worst things to come of the entire AGW emphasis is that other environmental concerns will be ignored and society as a whole will doubt the entire science community.
I think water: where it is, where it isn’t and what is in it is a much worse problem.

Richard, when you say “The fact that nature emits at least 34 molecules of CO2 for each molecule of CO2 emitted from the total of all human activities makes it pretty stunning that anybody would think there would be a discernible effect from the CO2 humans have pumped into the atmosphere.” it would be interesting to add the nubmer of CO2 molecules nature absorbs too.

My bath might fill as quickly as it empties if I set the taps to the correct (balancing) flow rate. If I then add another source of water, the bath will eventually overflow.

Not to mention the proportion of CO2 naturally absorbed when discussing that emitted by both nature and man doesn’t tell the full story.

David: you know full well the amount of research that has predicted the Arctic would be the first to be affected by rising temps and would cause the ice to become seasonal. Its part and parcel to AGW. And now it’s happening faster than any of the predictions.

As for Adaptation. Of course we will have to adapt. We in the short term have committed ourselves to that. However, I’ve seen too many people basically treat this as a grand experiment. That is totally selfish and basically amounts to not wanting to give up ones own lifestyle or expectations and selling out the generations beyond. And with the [snip] that this website promotes, that is exactly what this website is facilitating. You are talking about the well being of millions, perhaps billions of people in the next decades.

• • • • •

[First and last warning: Use of “deniaist” or similar pejorative will result in your entire comment being deleted. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

“… and basically amounts to not wanting to give up ones own lifestyle or expectations and selling out the generations beyond.”

You have it completely backward. By wasting immense amounts of current dollars on an evidence-free Precautionary Principle, we are literally robbing from the next generations. Therefore, the selfishness is entirely on the part of those pushing the AGW conjecture.

And I note that you still have produced no scientific evidence showing that the current Arctic ice extent is unprecedented. I doubt you want facts that contradict your beliefs, but for other readers, here are some links that show Arctic ice levels at or below current levels, as recently as the 1900’s:

The first link has numerous contemporary maps showing that Arctic ice levels fluctuate quite a lot, and that both the Northwest and Northeast Passages were ice free at times.

In the early 1900’s CO2 was under 300 ppmv. Today it is over 390 ppmv. Yet ice levels in 1938 were as low or lower than today. Thus, CO2 is not the cause of declining Arctic ice. If you cannot understand that, be assured that most everyone else can.

Chris Alemany says:
September 9, 2012 at 8:38 am
“David: you know full well the amount of research that has predicted the Arctic would be the first to be affected by rising temps and would cause the ice to become seasonal. Its part and parcel to AGW. And now it’s happening faster than any of the predictions.”

You need to provide evidence of this. Perhaps it is the last affected. “The ice to become seasonal”? This is just myopic and funny. “Faster”? There is NO proof of this. Let’s trash the economy of the western world on NO evidence. The Chinese and the Russians are laughing at you and wringing their hands in anticipation of the fall (sabotage?) of the western economy.

The images from the DMI for August in the early 20th century don’t approach anything anywhere near what has happened in the past 3 decades let alone since 2007. The whole Canadian Archipelago is open, both the Passages have opened first independantly and then simultaneously for multiple years now.

No one disputes the Arctic was likely seasonally ice free 3000-8000 years ago. That does not mean this time it is melting for the same reasons. It has been shown in fact that it cannot be any other reason than the CO2 we have ejected into the atmosphere.

The only sailing ships that have actually sailed through ice free Nortwest and Eastern Passages are those that did in the past 5 years. It has never been done before. Ever.

Here is some Sunday reading for you, from someone I respect a lot. Much like I wouldn’t dispute if my family doctor told me that I had cancer, nor do I dispute this Doctor when he says we are spreading a cancer on our own civilization.

He writes a scathing rebuke to our current government here in Canada whos MPs happily deny a problem exists on one hand, while using the problem to further its economic agenda and fill the pocket books of big business while endangering Canadians and all citizens of the world.

Chris Alemany says:
September 9, 2012 at 8:38 am
You are aware that I lived “off grid” for 3 years in Canada no less. Can you say that? I have far more experience in the wilderness that you can even imagine. Who do you think you are talking to? Spend 2 weeks outdoors (especially in winter) and we will then see if you want to pursue your line of thinking. Then consider children in the mix. Think it through.

I read your post at September 9, 2012 at 8:38 am and it is yet another example of a warmist rejecting the Precautionary Principle. We climate realists refute climate alarmism BECAUSE we care for future generations.

I here – yet again – explain it in hope that a warmist will understand.
1.
We know for certain fact that constraining the use of fossil fuels will kill many people. The effects would be worse than the oil crisis of the 1970s because the constraints would need to be more severe, energy use has increased since then, and the constraints would be permanent. Indeed, people need energy to live and human population is most conservatively estimated to peak at 2.6 billion more than now near the middle of this century. Those extra people need energy to live, so constraining energy use at its present level would kill billions of people, mostly children. And the ONLY sources of the needed extra energy are fossil fuels and nuclear power. The major increase has to be in fossil fuel use because not everything can be powered from the end of a wire.
2.
Discernible man-made global warming is a conjecture that has no supporting evidence of any kind and is denied by much empirical evidence. However, it has been emulated using computer models which have not been validated and have yet to demonstrate any predictive skill.
3,The precautionary principle says we should not accept the risks from the inevitable horrors of constraining fossil fuel use on the basis that there is a conjecture which has no supporting evidence but has been described using computer games.

In fact it is logical that the heat from the sun is greater at the equator and released out through the poles. It is logically LAST affected by warming. We have passed a small peak of heating and are on the downward slope of the sine wave. A sixty year (peak to peak) cycle for example would NOT show in the satellite record. You have jumped the shark.

At September 9, 2012 at 11:26 am you say
The only sailing ships that have actually sailed through ice free Nortwest and Eastern Passages are those that did in the past 5 years. It has never been done before. Ever.

Precautionary Principle is always applied to what you chose to believe and what you feel is most detrimental

If I am wrong (along with every national science academy in the world). then yes we will have spent much money and suffered unnecessary hardship. (THough in our current world economic state how much worse can it actually get). Yet we will also have a system of economy that is itself sustainable. Not reliant on external regimes. And not polluting our atmosphere.

If you and WUWT are wrong and we continue business as usual as if this is all just a ‘natural cycle’, temperatures continue to rise and all that is predicted comes to pass then cities will have to be relocated. Nations will have to be relocated. The bread baskets of North America that feed the world will be decimated and millions or billions will starve or simply perish in the inevitable wars that will result.

You tell me which scenario you would apply the ‘precautionary principle’ to. It is a choice between money, and life.

David: I’m glad you’ve lived off grid. You’re quite right that much hardship might come if we simply cut off all fossil fuel use in a day. That’s of course not going to happen nor is anyone advocating that. Don’t put words in peoples mouths… yet another tactic that is oh so tiresome.

Yet every day that we put off the inevitable we make the likelihood of that hardship, of that cliff, even greater.

I am beginning to get fed up with your posting nonsense. Please check what you write before posting it. For example, your post at September 9, 2012 at 12:05 pm disputed the fact and logical deduction stated by David Ball saying;

In fact it is logical that the heat from the sun is greater at the equator and released out through the poles. It is logically LAST affected by warming.

1.
The greenhouse effect is a radiative effect. Check it.
2.
The tropics are net absorbers of radiative energy and the polar regions are net emitters of radiative energy. Check it.
3.
Heat is transferred from the tropics to the polar regions by the thermohaline circulation. Check it.

It is a logical deduction from those three facts that a change to the radiative greenhouse effect would be first noticed near the tropics (I know why it would not be IN the tropics but I am sure you don’t) and then would become progressively more effective over time with distance from the tropics.

If you have a rational argument to dispute that logical deduction (there is one but I am sure you don’t know it) then present it. Everybody can then assess your argument. But please don’t waste space on this blog with the type of non-argument that your post presents.

“Your logic is based on what… the ‘fact’ that the Earth acts like a big paper bag full of hot air with two holes in each end? And does the cow jump over the man in the moon?”

Don’t sound like a fool. David Ball is correct. It is based on Henry’s Law. You need to get up to speed on the subject, instead of simply repeating your nonsense talking points. And:

“The only sailing ships that have actually sailed through ice free Nortwest and Eastern Passages are those that did in the past 5 years. It has never been done before. Ever.”

Obviously, you did not read the links. And the Huffington Post is every bit as scientific as Scientology.

And as Richard Courtney makes clear to you: “Discernible man-made global warming is a conjecture that has no supporting evidence of any kind and is denied by much empirical evidence.” That is factual, as has been shown many times here. You are blind to that reality.

Once again, there is no scientific evidence, or measurements, showing that the current Arctic ice conditions are unprecedened. If you believe there are, post your evidence here. Because all you have been doing is posting your beliefs. Post scientific evidence that the current ice conditions are unprecedented as you claim, or everyone will understand that you are simply expressing your unscientific alarmist beliefs.

Keep in mind that you baseless claim that declining Arctic ice will cause climate diruption is the alarmist crowd’s own conjecture. As such, the onus is on you to provide supporting evidence. But so far, there is no evidence that Arctic ice fluctuations cause any problem at all, or that CO2 is anything but harmless and beneficial to the biosphere. More is better, and less Arctic ice is better.

IPCC, BEST, Hansen, Arrhenius. I need not post them. You know them full well. They’ve been there for decades Smokey and David call it ‘no scientific evidence’, others call it their life work based on the actual scientific method that has been in place for hundreds of years.

I posted a link above containing fifteen peer reviewed papers showing an ice-free Arctic at different times during the Holocene. Thus, an ice-free Arctic is routine, natural, and normal. Any claims that “this time it’s different” require scientific evidence. Note that “scientific evidence” consists of raw data, or detailed observations. The onus is on those proposing the conjecture that conditions are different now. So far, they have failed to make a credible case.

The only difference is that [harmless, beneficial] CO2 has risen. All other conditions during the Holocene are very similar to today, therefore the null hypothesis remains unfalsified. Here is an hypothesis that I challenge Chris Alemany to try and falsify:

At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.

Any claims of falsification must be according to the scientific method: testable and verifiable, based on raw data.

I am prepared to prove beyond any doubt that CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. And of course, there is no verifiable evidence showing any global damage or harm from the enhance CO2 levels, therefore CO2 is harmless. And more CO2 is better, since the atmosphere is currently starved of it.

Finally, catastrophic AGW is a complete crock, and AGW itself has no measurable evidence to support it. It may exist, but it is so minuscule that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.

Congratulations. I’m glad you came to that conclusion. Unfortunately your conclusion is totally meaningless and worse, the “data” you so love to ignore shows it is absolutely based on a false premise. The other periods during the Holocene that exhibited these conditions are NOT the same as today. The only variable that is different is CO2. As beneficial and harmless as it is to most plants and animals, it is still, incredibly, still a gas that traps heat. So no matter if the Earth is ‘starved’ for it, it will have the same effect it would in any other place. And so we have what we have today.

I do love that line of reasoning.

“Oh don’t worry about the CO2, the Earth is “starving” for it… we must feed it by burning millions of years worth of stored CO2 so that the Earth is ‘healthy’ once again”

That’s pretty funny!

Meanwhile, 500 millions of years ago when the Earth was not, presumably, “starving” for it… Gondwana was hanging out at the South Pole where ice caps were generally non-existent for millions of years at a time.

No one disputes the Arctic was likely seasonally ice free 3000-8000 years ago. That does not mean this time it is melting for the same reasons. It has been shown in fact that it cannot be any other reason than the CO2 we have ejected into the atmosphere.

Black carbon is responsible for 50 percent of the total temperature increases in the Arctic from 1890 to 2007 according to a study published in Nature Geoscience. Since 1890 the temperature in the Arctic has risen 1.9 degrees Celsius, linking black carbon to nearly an entire degree rise in Celsius or almost two degrees Fahrenheit.

UI researcher finds black carbon implicated in global warming
…
They found that the amount of solar radiation absorbed increased as the black carbon to sulphate ratio rose. Also, black carbon plumes derived from fossil fuels were 100 percent more efficient at warming than were plumes arising from biomass burning.
…
The authors suggest that climate mitigation policies should aim to reduce the ratio of black carbon to sulphate in emissions, as well as the total amount of black carbon released.
…

Smut is a bigger problem than greenhouse gases in polar meltdown
…
But on snow—even at concentrations below five parts per billion—such dark carbon triggers melting, and may be responsible for as much as 94 percent of Arctic warming.
…
“Black carbon in snow causes about three times the temperature change as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” Zender says. “The climate is more responsive to this than [to] anything else we know.”
…

Places like Russia and China burn their fuels “dirty”. Here in North America and what was formerly known as Western Europe, we cleaned up our diesel engine exhaust and coal-fired power plant emissions decades ago. The soot gets the ice dirty, causing more heating and melting of the ice. This is a temporary effect on the sea ice, gone once those other countries clean up their emissions as well, and older dirty sea ice is replaced by new clean sea ice.

What is happening in the Arctic is within natural variation, but it is un-natural due to the human-released soot.

Instead of accepting my challenge to try and falsify my hypothesis, the numpty makes fun of it, as if that settles the matter. Pure delusion. Alemany’s failure to step up to the plate is noted.

Next: barry, you still have not answered my question: what if you consider the six years as part of one cycle? How does that affect your arithmetic? There have been step changes before, the most recent in the late ’70’s. Also, for hundreds of years it has been accepted as received wisdom that an ice-free Arctic is entirely beneficial, with no downside.

But with the current state of government education, and the ignorance of the masses immersed in alarmist pseudoscience, some folks have flipped completely, and now improbably believe that somehow an ice-free Arctic is an entirely bad thing. They have zero evidence to support their belief, but like Jehovah’s Witnesses, nothing can open thier minds.

Sorry Chris, your comment does not have bearing on whether or not anthropogenic additions of CO2 are melting the ice cap. You are still relying on “it must be it” sub-par logic. Your premise should never be presented as a scientific conclusion. Not by serious students of modern science.

Smokey: You must be hard of reading. IPCC, BEST, Arrhenius, Hansen, Weaver. They are but a few of the purveyors of actual knowledge on the issue. But of course you don’t even acknowledge them because that would mean you’d have to argue against them.

Throwing out names is no substitute for the scientific method. Once more, since it doesn’t seem to be sinking in: there is no credible scientific evidence supporting the CO2=CAGW conjecture.

And I again note that Alemany still will not step up to the plate and attempt to refute my easily testable, falsifiable hypothesis: CO2 is beneficial, and causes no global harm. Shrinking from that challenge shows that Alemany only has his own scientifically baseless opinion. He needs to run along to Pseudoskeptical Pseudoscience for some new talking points, since all his current beliefs have been easily deconstructed by others more knowledgeable.

lol. Smokey. I love how you make your posts sound like you’re putting me on trial. “Alemany still will not step up to the plate and attempt to refute my easily testable, falsifiable hypothesis”.

Guess what Smokey…. first… is your name really Smokey? lol.

Second. Your testable, falsifiable hypothesis is totally meaningless because “beneficial” is a subjective term. Plants will probably just love all that extra CO2… many other organisms will not… have you eaten an oyster lately? Shellfish Farmers around my area can’t grow them in the sea anymore because the acidity has reached levels that don’t allow juvenile oysters to form their shells reliably. They have to grow them first in tanks and then put them in the ocean once the shells are formed.

“Victoria – For more than two decades, Rob Saunders grew his shellfish larvae in ordinary seawater drawn from the pristine natural environment of Baynes Sound, one of the most productive shellfish farming areas on B.C.’s West Coast.

Now the water in Baynes Sound is so acidic, Mr. Saunders’ fragile seed stock will die unless he artificially adjusts the PH level in his hatchery tanks.

“Because of ocean acidification the only way we can grow any larvae – oysters, clams, mussels, geoducks, you name it – is to take the CO2 out of the seawater,” said Mr. Saunders, CEO of Island Scallops, the largest producer of shellfish seed stock on province’s West Coast.

“We would have been out of business this year if we didn’t figure out how to solve the problem.”

Ocean acidification, a worldwide phenomenon linked to global warming, was identified as a serious threat to the shellfish industry in Oregon and Washington state five years ago.

Caused by the absorption of excess CO2 from the atmosphere, ocean acidification lowers ocean PH levels and reduces the concentration of calcium carbonate, a key building block of seashells and other marine skeletons.

Mr. Saunders is currently taking part in a two-year, $250,000 study of pH levels in the waters between Denman Island and Vancouver Island, about 20 kilometres south of Courtenay.

Funded by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the study involves rigorous daily testing using an infrared gas analyzer to detect ocean carbon dioxide. DFO officials refused to discuss data that has been gathered so far, saying preliminary results won’t be made public until sometime next spring.

However, Mr. Saunders said there’s no doubt that acidification is affecting the survival of shellfish larvae.

“We grow them under different concentrations of CO2 to see how they live and die,” he said. “And they die if we use the ocean water. Period.””

If September sea ice minima are purely a result of random weather fluctuations, the odds that the 6 lowest September sea ice minima in the Arctic have all occurred in the last 6 years = 1 in 1,344,904
(clipped, see below)
Is that really so controversial?

No, it is not so controversial that the last six minimums are not the result of random weather fluctuations.

The maximums of the satellite records were set circa 1979. That was around the start of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, leading to increased Arctic warming. Add in the effects of soot (black carbon) depositing on the sea ice. Low amounts of Arctic sea ice were the natural result of that. With those reductions, we end up with lots of thin new ice that are vulnerable to getting broken up by the winds and currents and easily flushed out of the Arctic basin, as we have seen.

The decline of Arctic sea ice is from mainly natural but also un-natural causes, like how percentages of grey hair increase from nautral aging with un-natural excess stress.

Now we are in the negative phase of the PDO. Other natural cycles are also turning around, that should lead to Arctic cooling. Once the soot problem gets taken care of, Arctic sea ice should make a nice recovery. All it takes is one or more good years where that thin new ice doesn’t get torn up by winds and storms and survives to become thicker multi-year ice.

Therefore it is supremely unlikely – virtually certain – that the cause of the last 6 years’ minima is not random weather fluctuations.

I clipped that part as you apparently have one too many negatives as it says the opposite of what you’ve been claiming.

I do like a good laugh so I always enjoy the ‘logic’ of warmist zealots.

Chris Alemany called for actions to benefit the children of the future, so I pointed out that what he calls for would kill billions of children in coming decades. He answered my point by not disputing it and, therefore, I asked him why he wanted to kill the children.

Answer came there none.

barry is told

You need to prove this is a “record breaker”. That is all I am asking. Your calculation is meaningless if you do not.

and he replies

There is no doubt that 2012 will be amongst the 6 lowest September Arctic sea ice minima in the 34-year satellite record. Here (again) is the data for the last 33 September minima.

Clearly, barry thinks the Olympic gold medal was won the guy who came sixth in the 100m final.

Smokey: You must be hard of reading. IPCC, BEST, Arrhenius, Hansen, Weaver. They are but a few of the purveyors of actual knowledge on the issue. But of course you don’t even acknowledge them because that would mean you’d have to argue against them.

I take it those other sites never told you much about how CO₂ has a well-known logarithmic effect. There is increasing evidence the effect is saturated. Thus the expected further increases will yield minimal increases in global temperatures, if any.

“Friends” So you talk like you’re in a court too? Or are you a politician?

And hey, two can play the game… why didn’t you answer my question… I’ll post it again for you in case you missed it:

If I am wrong (along with every national science academy in the world). then yes we will have spent much money and suffered unnecessary hardship. (THough in our current world economic state how much worse can it actually get). Yet we will also have a system of economy that is itself sustainable. Not reliant on external regimes. And not polluting our atmosphere.

If you and WUWT are wrong and we continue business as usual as if this is all just a ‘natural cycle’, temperatures continue to rise and all that is predicted comes to pass then cities will have to be relocated. Nations will have to be relocated. The bread baskets of North America that feed the world will be decimated and millions or billions will starve or simply perish in the inevitable wars that will result.

You tell me which scenario you would apply the ‘precautionary principle’ to. It is a choice between money, and life.

Alemany, you are not on trial. But your anti-science comments are on trial, such as your recent nonsense that we can’t have oysters because of acidifying oceans. That nonsense has been thoroughly debunked right here. Search the archives, you will certainly learn that you are wrong regarding the ‘acidifying’ nonsense. Here, I’ll even do your homework for you:

You really need to get up to speed. The articles above have plenty of comments, and both the articles and comments thoroughly deconstruct the “acidification” nonsense, and the rest of your pseudoscience climate alarmism. Really, instead of posting your easily debunked talking points, learn something for a change. There is a lot of knowledge there, by peer reviewed writers.

And you falsely claim:

“Your testable, falsifiable hypothesis is totally meaningless because “beneficial” is a subjective term.”

BZ-Z-Z-Z-ZT!! WRONG.

But Vanna has some lovely parting gifts for you on your way out.

You’re just hiding out from answering again. “Beneficial” is certainly quantifiable. It’s antonym is “harmful”. Show us global harm due specifically to anthropogenic CO2, if you think you can. Make sure it’s per the scientific method. Or, continue to hide out by claiming that “harm” is meaningless, too. You’re good at hiding out instead of answering.

“If you and WUWT are wrong and we continue business as usual as if this is all just a ‘natural cycle’, temperatures continue to rise and all that is predicted comes to pass then cities will have to be relocated. Nations will have to be relocated. The bread baskets of North America that feed the world will be decimated and millions or billions will starve or simply perish in the inevitable wars that will result.”

Utter nonsense. Cities will have to be relocated? Nations will have to be relocated?? Outright lunacy. Where will Italy be relocated to? Where will we put Mexico?

Fact: if the planet warms another degree or so, it will be entirely beneficial. Millions of arable acres will be opened to farming in places like Siberia, Mongolia, Canada and Alaska. Evaporation will increase, providing needed rainfall.

No one will relocate over 1ºC. They won’t even notice, since the warming will take place at night, and low temperatures – not high temperatures – will rise, and the higher latitudes will benefit; there is ample evidence that the Equator has remained within ±1ºC for the past billion years — even during the great stadials. But as we see, Alemany lives in fear. It is his primary motivation.

So more warmth is all good. The only scary scenario is if temperatures decline. That would hasten the killing of billions of people, on top of the billions that Richard Courtney shows that the alarmist policies will certainly kill.

I would have trusted Anthony here too if he had actually continued with the work he started with BEST. But instead he chose to run away. His choice… and a very telling one.

Indeed. Anthony was told it’d be an honest scientific evaluation of the temperature records.

Instead we got a circus, science by press release, as Richard Muller coughed up four unpublished un-peer reviewed papers (that were subsequently rejected for publication), and to much fanfare Muller went on to another career as a “converted climate skeptic” making speeches and many media appearances. Co-author Dr. Judith Curry quickly distanced herself from the mess.

Seeing where BEST and Muller were heading, with that steaming pile of self-aggrandizement and highly questionable evaluation practices, Anthony decided he did not want his name and reputation attached to it and walked away from his endorsement.

What his choice told, was that Anthony Watts is an honest and honorable man.

Chris, Kevin,and barry. I completely understand that your academic careers are based solely on you toeing your professors’ line of thinking (or if you are an academic toeing the Uni’s line). If you think any other way, it will be game over. That should be a clue that academia is NOT the bastion of free thought they would like you to believe. Quite the opposite. It has hobbled science and innovation incredibly. Perhaps one day you will look closely at what has been thrust upon you and you will see the giant holes in your arguments. Or not.

Try picking apart the papers that support your worldview, as that is what a skeptic would do. We try to find the problems in all papers, pro or con. If you hang around you will see that. Stop thinking emotionally if you can. And stop hating.

That will be another one of the literally hundreds of alarmist predictions that never happened. In a couple weeks the Arctic will begin its annual re-freeze.

In fact, exactly none of the climate alarmist predictions since the 1970’s have happened. Faced with that epic failure, any honest scientist would be forced to conclude that the AGW conjecture has been falsified, or at least rendered irrelevant.

Only cognitive dissonance-afflicted true believers will look at their record of total failure and keep insisting that climate disruption is right around the corner. Pure delusion. But their minds are made up and closed tight, so what are you gonna do? They believe their nonsense, and belief is comfortable. So they appeal to corrupt, self-serving authorities, and stop thinking for themselves. They would certainly make lousy skeptics, since they are incapable of changing their minds.

To all. You know that I was being overly simplistic regarding the flow of heat to the poles. I was trying to state a complex idea in a clear and simple manner. I have looked at Chris and Kevin and barry’s stuff (which has all been posted here before), but I do not see that they looked at anything that was posted in rebuttal. The evidence for that is in the repeated mantra.

“But your anti-science comments are on trial, such as your recent nonsense that we can’t have oysters because of acidifying oceans. ”

LOL. So are you disputing the fact that shellfish farmers here are unable to grow their oysters in ocean water due to the acidity? Shall I give them your phone number so they can tell them yourself, would that be good enough?

To quote Gene Roddenberry; Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins to not just tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in lifeforms.

I certainly agree that BEST should not have done their PR before the stuff was properly published. However, the likelihood of it changing the actual data or conclusions is quite slim. Anthony knew this of course… so all his hissy-fit did was make it look like he just didn’t like the result of what will stand as the most comprehensive study about the link between CO2 and AGW that there is.

It is crystal clear that Alemany did not read a single one of the nine links I posted for his edification. His response is typical cognitive dissonance. His belief in his oyster nonsense is too comfortable to expend a little effort to get some real knowledge. Typical of the blinkered climate alarmist true believers.

And just so no one has any misconceptions… I don’t have an “academic” career. I’m a computer technician by trade. That is why I listen to the experts (the people who actually do the work), like Weaver and others who have been published on the subject as well as the many compendia of all of the actual literature including but certainly not limited to the IPCC reports.

“It is crystal clear that Alemany did not read a single one of the nine links I posted for his edification.”

Who exactly are you talking to? Is it normal for people on this website to talk as if they’re in a stadium?

Plus, along with your ability to totally ignore actual published science, you also seem to be performing some sort of telepathy?

I did actually click on all your links. I especially like the first one though that declares “CO2 MAKES OCEANS MORE NEUTRAL” by… posting on a blog…. scientific method be damned. Peer review be damned. Just put it up there, it must be true.

The same blog, by the way, who’s owner walked away from BEST because they released their results before being reviewed and published.

So… “friends”… as you can see. These people are ignorant hypocrites that likely wouldn’t know a oyster larvae from the stuff left on their kleenex.

No misconceptions here, none at all. It is clear that Alemany has never had an original thought; he only repeats nonsense talking points that are spoon fed to him by others with an alarmist agenda. BEST, for example, is nothing but bogus propaganda, as this corrected chart makes clear. It has always been all about the money, but some folks don’t understand that.

Run along now back to RealClimatePropaganda, you need some new talking points to replace all the debunked nonsense that we have been correcting. Since you admit you don’t think for yourself.

Oysters, heh.

The pH changes claimed for human CO2 [and which are rank speculation] are less than 0.2. But oceans typically vary between a pH of 7.7 and 8.2 on a daily basis, as this Willis Eschenbach chart of Monterrey Bay intake water shows. Oysters are grown in Monterrey Bay, and they thrive in big pH changes, making complete nonsense of the claim that “acidification” of the oceans is eliminating oysters. That is just one more preposterous scare tactic that credulous believers like Alemany fall for.

Oh but Smokey, you seem so concerned about having empirical data… so why pray tell do you not agree that shellfish farmers might be having a bit of an issue with any assertions that rising CO2 has no effect on them when they have the data right there in front of them every day.

And while you are at it, please let me know why the British Columbia Shellfish Growers Association, who represent the working lives of nearly 1000 people in my region would be ‘spoonfeeding’ anyone anything.

All they care about is their livelihoods after all. Oh, but all you can do is chuckle. Glad you’re not concerned for them.

Alemany, you are a hopeless believer. You refuse to read the articles I posted that debunk your oyster nonsense. Most folks like to hear both sides of a debate. Not you. Your mind is made up and closed tight, and you admittedly let others do your thinking for you.

Try reading the links I helpfully posted. They will explain in detail why your belief in dying oysters is complete nonsense. And being someone who regularly enjoys oysters, I note that prices have not changed at all, further debunking the dishonest claims of paid scientists who sound a false alarm because it is self-serving. If you were to start thinking for yourself, you might understand that your “studies” are all about the money, and the truth is not in them.

“The owners of Whiskey Creek Shellfish Hatchery at Oregon’s Netarts Bay began experiencing a decline in oyster seed production several years ago, and looked at potential causes including low oxygen and pathogenic bacteria. Alan Barton, who works at the hatchery and is an author on the journal article, was able to eliminate those potential causes and shifted his focus to acidification.

Barton sent samples to OSU and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory for analysis. Their ensuing study clearly linked the production failures to the CO2 levels in the water in which the larval oysters are spawned and spend the first 24 hours of their lives, the critical time when they develop from fertilized eggs to swimming larvae, and build their initial shells.

“The early growth stage for oysters is particularly sensitive to the carbonate chemistry of the water,” said George Waldbusser, a benthic ecologist in OSU’s College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences. “As the water becomes more acidified, it affects the formation of calcium carbonate, the mineral of which the shell material consists. As the CO2 goes up, the mineral stability goes down, ultimately leading to reduced growth or mortality.””

And of course… this was all first predicted to happen back in the 1890s with Svend Arrhenius work on ‘carbonic acid’ and rock chemistry. But hey… who wants to listen to scientists from 120 years ago. Scientific Method is so YESTERDAY.

LOL. So are you disputing the fact that shellfish farmers here are unable to grow their oysters in ocean water due to the acidity? Shall I give them your phone number so they can tell them yourself, would that be good enough?

Baynes Sound is a huge sea garden area that has produced food for Comox Valley residents for thousands of years. The picture with this column features natural produce from the waters of the sound and land-based agriculture from our garden which is on the uplands above the sound.
…
Over the past few years we have had a series of industrial accidents that have led to the destruction of rich seafood producing coastal regions. The oil spill of the Exxon Valdez is still affecting the coastal waters of Alaska. Last year we had the terrible tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico with the British Petroleum offshore drilling rig that has decimated much of the marine and shellfish industries of the area. Acid mine drainage has created sterile rivers and lakes in the coal mining regions of the Eastern United States. Meanwhile in the Comox Valley we have paid a high price for the acid mine drainage into the Tsolum River.
…

Chris, go to a local aquarium store and buy a kit to test the water yourself. In addition, there should be archival records for your area that record ph in the bay area. The ocean is not becoming acidic. It is still in the normal range for alkalinity. Really. Either the farmers have drunk the cool-aid, or they are pulling your chain.

Once again the credulous Alemany quotes an “ecologist” who is paid to find reasons that oyster farmers can use to get their fingers into taxpayers’ wallets. Now Alemany is letting an ‘ecologist’ do his thinking for him.

Rational folks, on the other hand, look at the situation and see:

1) The cost of oysters is not rising

2) There are likely other reasons, such as local pollution, for the farmers’ problems because it is not a worldwide problem

3) The maximum pH changes claimed are ≤ 0.2. But as shown above, the oceans’ pH fluctuates by orders of magnitude more than that every day

Oysters thrive in varying pH levels. A minuscule change of ≤ 0.2 would not even be noticable, nor is it measurable. The “acidification” scare is just another false talking point that credulous fools believe. The immense buffering capacity of the oceans precludes any measurable change in ocean pH. There is simply not enough CO2 in all the world’s fossil fuels to measurably alter ocean pH. You would already know that, if you had read the links I so helpfully provided.

But you do not want to know the truth. The resulting cognitive dissonance might make your head explode. And being ignorant is comfortable. But don’t try to convince the rest of us that you actually understand, when you admittedly allow others to do your thinking for you.

“Once again the credulous Alemany quotes an “ecologist” who is paid to find reasons that oyster farmers can use to get their fingers into taxpayers’ wallets.”

LOL! What the hell are you talking about. What “ecologists”? And please do show me where the BC or Pacific Shellfish Growers Associations asked for any taxpayer monies??

Now you are just making stuff up. Not suprising really when you don’t have a leg to stand on…why not just make one up yourself.

The science. You know.. that thing you do when you actually take physical things or organisms… test them in different physical conditions… and report the results… shows that the oysters in BC and Oregon are having a hard time adapting to the changes in CO2 levels in ocean waters.

Pamela: Or perhaps they’ve done the test themselves and were able to come to that conclusion! Oh.. but then they’d be wrong because you disagree with them… their oysters dying in normal sea water be darned. lol.

Nice try. The Acid mine drainage is from mining that stopped 60 years ago and so has been a reality in the watershed for longer than that. Indeed it is a problem but Amazingly, the shellfish growers association and the researchers accounted for that… you see… they’ve been producing oysters for over 60 years. Baynes Sound oysters actually end up on the dinner plates of of patrons in some of the best restaurants in America. Yet just in the last few years they’ve been having problems with the acidity. So sorry, it ain’t the AMD.

I am not often wrong, but when I am I admit it. It is a characteristic of the alarmist crowd that they can never admit they were wrong. Because if they did their whole charade would come crashing down around their ears. And the more ignorant they are, the more intransigent. Alemany is a textbook example.

Ecologists are akin to sociologists in the scheme of science education. The only relevant degrees are in the hard sciences. An ecologist was not selected because he knows much, but because for pay he will write what his paymaster wants. See, it’s all about the money in climate pseudoscience. If he wouldn’t go along, they would simply get someone else.

Alemany’s backing and filling in multiple posts over his being caught out by his own quote merely digs his hole deeper.

Oh Smokey, I feel for you. It must be terrible to have to resort to denigrating scientists based on their title rather than acknowledge the empirical evidence they as well as the lay-workers in the business show.

It must be a terrible world for you to have to believe that they are all payed off to be able to come up with such data.

Sorry Smokey. The evidence speaks for itself. Acidification from Human CO2 emissions (note: from 50 years ago…as that is the time it takes for the waters to upwell along the Pacific Coast of NA from wherever they started) are the only explanations scientists and businesses have been able to come up with to explain the mortality of their stocks.

But here’s some good news:
Websters dictionary has this as their definition for ‘ecologist’ or ‘ecology’… hopefully it restores your faith a little bit:
“a branch of science concerned with the interrelationship of organisms and their environments”
“the totality or pattern of relations between organisms and their environment”

Oh wait, sorry.. there I go “parroting” again. Cuz I just don’t know any better. And worse… from ENGLISH scholars. Now there’s a soft science.

You can take it from this Chemistry Ph.D. that the oceans are not acidic, and a pH change from 8.2 to 8.1, whether or not caused by CO2, is indeed an approach to neutral pH (which is 7.0 or very close, depending on temperature and other factors).

Since your posts above require brainpower approximating that of a parrot, I’m not expecting much here, but have you considered why CO2 would have such specific effects in such specific locales, but yet spare the rest of the world’s population of oysters ??

(…) Anthony knew this of course… so all his hissy-fit did was make it look like he just didn’t like the result of what will stand as the most comprehensive study about the link between CO2 and AGW that there is.

The studies whose papers were so tragically flawed they were rejected for publication, will stand in such glorious regard?

Whoops, I made a mistake, BEST pushed out five papers, not four.

So that was FIVE papers rejected for publication.

Quite an auspicious record. BEST is sure to be remembered for that. As “the most comprehensive study about the link between CO2 and AGW that there is”, not so much.

Plus, as you can see by looking at the BEST Project objectives, studying a relationship between CO₂ and AGW was never one of them. So why would you think BEST was a study about that link?

No, it is not so controversial that the last six minimums are not the result of random weather fluctuations.

Sanity from someone at last! Good on you.

Yes, my construction on that sentence was clumsy, thanks for clipping it.

As far as I can glean, you are saying that the declining trend in Arctic sea ice from 1979 is a result partly of natural cycles (PDO), and partly from black soot. You are also making a prediction of imminent cooling. Can you describe the minimum condition when you think that your prediction would be falsified? (For example: the globe and the Arctic warms over the next ten years, and sea ice continues to decline at the current rate – would that suffice, or something less stringent?)

You have moved our side-discussion forward from probability to attribution.

As a skeptic, I would ask you to demonstrate that the PDO has an influence on Arctic sea ice. Statistical correlation is a good starting point, but the clincher will be physical evidence. For example, how do PDO changes alter heat transport to the Arctic? Why wouldn’t the Arctic Oscillation have a stronger influence on Arctic sea ice coverage/volume?

By all means, cite scientific studies corroborating your position, and if you know of any that counter it, it would be great to see them linked too, in case we are able to discuss the relative merits. I’ll have a trawl for information when I have some time.

No! That is a lie and a smear. And it is not surprising that you lie and smear because warmists always lie and smear when they are shown to be wrong.

You say you want to constrain the use of fossil fuels.
I explained (September 9, 2012 at 11:42 am) that constraining the use of fossil fuels would certainly kill billions of people mostly children.
You have persisted in saying you want to constrain the use of fossil fuels.

I yet again ask, WHY DO YOU WANT TO KILL THE CHILDREN?

And at September 9, 2012 at 7:33 pm you ask Smokey

so why pray tell do you not agree that shellfish farmers might be having a bit of an issue with any assertions that rising CO2 has no effect on them when they have the data right there in front of them every day.

At the Annual Oyster Festival here in Falmouth, UK, none of the oyster fishermen or oyster business people have any concerns about the matter. The concerned “shellfish farmers” whom you mention probably exist only in the minds of people inhabiting warmist web sites.

But even if the oysters and oyster fishermen were suffering, then I would still care more for the children. So, I stress that I want an answer to the question,WHY DO YOU WANT TO KILL THE CHILDREN?

Richard:
Aside from the fact that right after you told me I’m a liar and am smearing you by saying you seem to think spending money kills children. (on constraining fossil fuel use and replacing it with something else).

Then you tell me that I want to kill the children. I don’t think you are a liar. But you most certainly are a hypocrite in the first degree.

I’m not talking about British oyster farmers Richard I’m talking about farmers on the West Coast of North America. Yes, the pH is different in all sorts of different places around the ocean. None of that means that in one (fairly large) area, the acidification from CO2 emissions cannot be contributing to the death of juvenile oysters.

“The concerned “shellfish farmers” whom you mention probably exist only in the minds of people inhabiting warmist web sites.”

Wrong Richard. Phone them up yourself if you have the guts. http://bcsga.ca These are real people. The BC Shellfish Growers Association represents a $37 Million industry providing 1000 full time, year-round jobs in my region. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions (from 50 years ago) are causing them to have to change the way they do their work… I do not look forward to what they will have to be doing 50 years from now to keep providing their customers with the food they want.

At the latitude where today’s ice is actually present (between 80 north latitude and the pole during the month of September at minimum ice extent), removing ice coverage increases heat loss from the Arctic surface, and cools the atmosphere.

Catastrophic positive ice-albedo-feedback is a myth – per square meter, there is more energy lost by evaporation from ice-free waters than can be gained by either direct sunlight absorption into the ocean, or indirect sunlight after being scattered by clouds.

Sure, IF ice were covering the tropical waters off of Africa or South America or Australia, THEN loss of ice WOULD increase net albedo and WOULD increase energy absorption. But there isn’t any ice in those regions. There is no sea ice left to melt on tundra and tree-covered regions on land where localized warming has occurred.

But between 80 north latitude and the north pole? Doesn’t happen. Can’t happen when you do the calculation. And, to prove this, look at the last 64 years of daily temperatures by the DMI. Summertime daily temperatures at 80 north are DECREASING. The only Arctic temperatures increasing are in the interior regions already ice-free. Regions already tree and tundra covered during their months of summertime sunlight. Regions which ARE increasing their albedo due to the 15% to 27% GREATER growth of all the earth’s vegetation due to greater CO2 levels in today’s world. Sure, we have yearly average Arctic temperatures from regions 1200 to 1600 km SOUTH of the Arctic ice that are increasing. But those temperatures have nothing to do with air temperatures up where the ice actually is.

You have confirmed my suspicion that your career depends on the models being correct. They are not. You cannot be unbiased and are not a reliable contributor to the discussion. I do not expect that you will read any links I have posted as it is clear that you have your fingers in your ears.

“You have confirmed my suspicion that your career depends on the models being correct”

Oh do explain how my career as a Computer Technician at a University depends on IPCC models being correct.

While you are at it why don’t you share your career as well?

As for your links to what I presume is your website, have your assertions on soil moisture been peer reviewed and published? There doesnt seem to be a single reference to a single research paper on any of those pages… Or is that level of scrutiny only for the BEST.

Your post addressed to me at September 10, 2012 at 6:05 am provides examples of them all.

Firstly, that post says to me

Aside from the fact that right after you told me I’m a liar and am smearing you by saying you seem to think spending money kills children. (on constraining fossil fuel use and replacing it with something else).

That quote proves you are a liar and that you are smearing me because
1. At no time have I mentioned “spending money”,
2. I have not suggested, implied or agreed that “spending money kills children”.
and
3. I have not discussed constraining fossil fuel use and replacing it with something else. On the contrary, at September 9, 2012 at 11:42 am I said

And the ONLY sources of the needed extra energy are fossil fuels and nuclear power. The major increase has to be in fossil fuel use because not everything can be powered from the end of a wire.

Importantly, it was you – not me – who raised the issue of the future for children in your post at September 8, 2012 at 4:31 pm where you wrote

The Arctic is going to be ice free for the first time in millennia. Your family need not be frightened. Just stop making excuses and do something about it so your children (and my children) and grandchildren and family down the line have a chance.

My post at September 9, 2012 at 11:42 am replied by explaining that constraining the use of fossil fuels at their present levels would certainly kill billions of people, mostly children, in the coming decades.

Your response has been to ignore what I explained despite repeated reminders from Smokey and from me. Instead, you have persistently raised this red-herring about “spending money” that I have refused to catch. And you have continued to call for reduction of fossil fuel usage. Indeed, your post I am answering continues that call and says you want fossil fuels usage replaced by “something else”.

There is no “something else” and you have not suggested any “something else” because you know there is no “something else”. Wind, wave, solar and muscle powers were abandoned when the greater energy intensity of fossil fuels became available by use of the steam engine. What else do you think could provide the energy obtained from fossil fuels; unicorn farts?

Your call for a constraint on fossil fuel usage and constraining the use of fossil fuels at present level would kill billions of children. Reducing the use of fossil fuels would kill more. Your response to my explaining that has been your continued call for constraint of fossil fuel use, so I have repeatedly asked youWhy do you want to kill the children?
You persist in not answering but you lie, obfuscate and smear instead.

You obfuscate by claiming the oceans are neutralising to a degree that shellfish are being destroyed. That side-track is daft because your claim is a physical impossibility: in the unlikely event that you want to know why it is physically impossible then look up oceanic buffering.

And, in these circumstances, you have the gall to smear me by saying I am a “hypocrite”! And you try to flame by suggesting I “lack guts”. Well, I don’t need much “guts” to stand up to lies, smears and obfuscations from a little oik like you.

Stop blathering and answer the question,Why do you want to kill the children?

Chris, I found the abstract list for the Oregon/Washington shellfish symposium of 2008 after the 2007 crash. The crash was not caused by acidification of our coastline. Our ph varies within the normal range. Do you check your sources or do you leave that up to others?

“Catastrophic positive ice-albedo-feedback is a myth – per square meter, there is more energy lost by evaporation from ice-free waters than can be gained by either direct sunlight absorption into the ocean, or indirect sunlight after being scattered by clouds”

Care to provide a source for this rejection of basic thermo-dynamics?

“More open water has led to enhanced solar heat input and warming of the upper ocean and greater ice melt. While there may not be a tipping point for Arctic sea ice cover, positive feedbacks do contribute to rapid changes. The declining Arctic sea ice cover is affecting human activities.”

He’s employed by, and being exploited specifically because of this type of catastrophic extrapolation. His statement – at the areas north of 80 north latitude specifically where today’s minimum ice areas exist – is wrong.

His employer, his funding, his publicity IS driven by the results (the new taxes, the greater power, the new control enabled by such CAGW extremism).

Consider this: Warmed pools of water from ENSO pattern oscillations, riding on the surface conveyor belt, spills (part of it) into the Arctic where it warms the undersurface of the ice, melting it away. But that also allows this abundant warmed water to cool, eventually letting it sink where it flows back out into the currents, this time riding on the deep water outgoing currents. What we are seeing might be a necessary part of the recharging method that keeps the overturning conveyor belt moving.

As to Chris’ idea that open Arctic water leads to warmer water, he may not understand that at this point in time, the Sun is at such an angle, solar warming is minimal and evaporation is in high gear. When ice cover is low as it is now, could be the method that expels oscillation-driven periods of oceanic warming back into space.

This also means that cooler water from ENSO pattern cooling oscillations will also head to the Arctic where it will not melt the ice very well.

“I have data for my postulation. If you can provide some hard data (not graphs) for your cycle postulation, then I can have at least some facts with which to formulate/test a conjecture.”

No, barry. Graphs are based upon data, and most folks can see at a glance what the graphs are saying. For example, there was a step change in Arctic ice in the late 1970’s, That happened when the narrative was “Global Cooling”, so it was generally ignored.

There is a natural explanation for declining Arctic ice: the Atlantic Oscillation [Michael Mann takes credit for discovering the AO, but as usual he is lying].

The AO fully explains why the Arctic is losing ice, but the Antarctic is gaining ice. The current alarmist narrative has not one iota of scientific evidence supporting it, and as Richard Courtney accurately points out, if alarmist policies continue many will die including plenty of children. Alemany is a blinkered fool who refuses to respond to that sad reality, because he is part of the problem; an enabler of disastrous policies that impact the world’s poorest.

BRENNAN CLARKE
VICTORIA — Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Oct. 30 2011, 9:08 PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Sep. 06 2012, 10:30 AM EDT
…
The excess carbon dioxide that causes acidification is often trapped in seawater 15-30 metres below the surface. Scientists have yet to pinpoint what causes “corrosive” water to rise to the surface, but storms, ocean currents and temperature changes are believed to be factors, Mr. Dewey said.
…

Doesn’t sound much like absorption of atmospheric CO₂ by surface waters, if the CO₂ is trapped under pressure like in a can of soda pop. Actually, the describing of it as “trapped” doesn’t sound very scientific at all, since that implies when the water approaches the surface and the pressure is relieved then the CO₂ is released. If it is dissolved in the water and causing “ocean acidification”, why would it be released at all?

Gee, no wonder you didn’t provide the link.

From you on September 9, 2012 at 8:46 pm: (bold added)

Sorry Smokey. The evidence speaks for itself. Acidification from Human CO2 emissions (note: from 50 years ago…as that is the time it takes for the waters to upwell along the Pacific Coast of NA from wherever they started) are the only explanations scientists and businesses have been able to come up with to explain the mortality of their stocks.

From the deep water depths of 3785 and 1655m, the water upwelling against the North American Pacific Northwest is about 1400 years old, could be more. That water last saw the top of the ocean around 600 AD. From only 792m, that water has been in transit for around 400 to 500 years.

Thus the age of the water is definitely Pre-Industrial, from long before the geologically recent rise in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations.

On the ‘published peer review': I never said the quote was from a peer reviewed journal. The study in BC is still in the throws of publishing by the researchers at SFU and UBC. Which is why I linked to the announcement of the already published work in Oregon showing the same thing at oyster farms there.

UBC/SFU researchers have already published research on shellfish responses to acificidication though in August 2011. They find that if you enjoy eating muscles you might have problems finding ones grown in the sea in a few decades. But sea urchins (which are delicious by the way) should be OK.
PLOS One:http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0022881

“A previous study co-authored by Hales found the water that is being upwelled in the Pacific Ocean off the Oregon coast has been kept at depth away from the surface for about 50 years – meaning it was last exposed to the atmosphere a half-century ago, when carbon dioxide levels were much lower. “Since atmospheric CO2 levels have risen significantly in the past half-century, it means that the water that will be upwelled in the future will become increasingly be more corrosive,” Hales said.”

I know I know… can’t trust anyone in Oregon. They’re all payed for by Greenpeace and granola companies.

Alemany’s appeals to authorities and threadbombing grandstanding are unconvincing, because he admitted that he does not think for himself. Therefore, he is cherry-picking only those [generally corrupt] authorities that say what he wants to hear. All he is doing is demonstrating what I have been saying: that $Billions in federal grants handed out every year to ‘study climate change’ generates reams of papers. And no one gets the free money if they tell the truth: that nothing exceptional is happening. The planet has seen it all before. [And note that papers are not ‘scientific evidence’, they are opinion. Evidence is raw data and verifiable observations].

Alemany says: “Why don’t you provide that data then so we can all see it.”

Someone who does not think for himself does not need raw data, which is reflected in the charts themselves. And:

“Care to provide an actual published bit of research on that or should we just take your word for it.”

I have provided plenty of published research, but Alemany confesses that he lets others do his thinking for him, so it is casting pearls before swine.

One serious problem is the WUWT time stamps, which indicate that Alemany is deliberately wasting his employer’s time and money by posting during working hours. Typical excuses given by others have been: ‘I post on my breaks’, and, ‘My employer says it’s OK’. As if.

I suspect Alemany’s misappropriation of funds will become known by his employer, and it will create bad publicity, as it has for others [Jan Perlwitz comes to mind]. We can help out, because those time stamps never go away.

I write to respectfully request that a new moderation policy be considered.

If poster has a point then s/he needs to state it and can cite references and/or links to support the point. However, the practice of ‘snowing’ the thread with ‘cut & paste’ references – many with no relevance – forces ‘onlookers’ to scroll past these meaningless lists. The scrolling may deter them from continuing with the thread and makes it likely they will miss real posts that appear within the lists.

Clearly, the only possible reason for the lists is to disrupt the thread.

Please consider a policy for snipping such disruptive posts.

Richard

REPLY: Noted, but also note that we are down one regular moderator since REP died, and I have a business to run during the day. – Anthony

UBC/SFU researchers have already published research on shellfish responses to acificidication though in August 2011. They find that if you enjoy eating muscles you might have problems finding ones grown in the sea in a few decades. But sea urchins (which are delicious by the way) should be OK.

I write to inform you that – for the same reasons – if you enjoy eating pigs you might have problems finding ones that have not flown away in a few decades. But cows (which are delicious by the way) won’t fly so should be OK.

Eisenman, I., and J.S. Wettlaufer. 2009. Nonlinear threshold behavior during the loss of Arctic sea ice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106:28–32, http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806887106.

This is how you seek to prove to Smokey and anyone reading that the loss of Arctic sea ice can’t possibly be tied to the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation,

By throwing up a lot of papers that never even looked at the AMO as a possible cause.

Your ability to critically and persuasively argue in a public forum is truly in it’s own class. The political class. With the skills you have, you should run for office. You’d be a great politician, a true and dedicated champion for your cause.

On one item I have to agree with Chris Alemany. Loss of Sea Ice- Loss of Albedo-causing a net positive feedback. I have read so many abstracts on this. However, it still is based mostly on linear models. Still some uncertainty. Please, anyone, refer to where the physics contradicts this.
However,
Chris I have a question for you. After WW11 the industrial revolution accelerated and with that the presumed emission of CO2. Yet there are countless records of a net decrease in world temperatures, increases in arctic sea ice and no increases in sea temperatures (that I know of).
There were warnings of the coming ice age. Changes were reported over a thirty year period. The current US Science Czar warned of the possibility of a huge and disastrous tsunami being formed when a huge chunk of ice would break off from Antarctica.
My question is if atmospheric CO2 was increasing and the mechanism by which the atmosphere gains more heat with the increase in CO2 is in play, where did the heat go? It is quantitative and would have to have gone somewhere.

UBC/SFU researchers have already published research on shellfish responses to acificidication though in August 2011. They find that if you enjoy eating muscles you might have problems finding ones grown in the sea in a few decades. But sea urchins (which are delicious by the way) should be OK.
PLOS One:http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0022881

that is also where the 50 years came from.

Really? Have you read it?

Using these measures we demonstrate that S. franciscanus may have faster evolutionary responses within 50 years of the onset of predicted year-2100 CO₂ conditions despite having lower population turnover rates.
…
To characterize the rate of adaptation, we iterated the breeder’s equation with this breeder turnover rate for 50 years of evolution.
…
When we simulated the effects of this difference over time by allowing post-selection cohorts of larvae to recruit into and mix with the surviving adult population, and iterated over 50 years of simulated selection, S. franciscanus had faster rates of simulated evolution than M. trossulus. This occurred over most of the range of possible maternal-effect heritabilities and population turnover rates (Fig. 3): under almost all combinations, sea urchin populations under high pCO2 reached the low-pCO2 phenotype within 50 years of selection (long grey lines spanning the range of planktonic durations in Fig. 3b), but no combination of parameters resulted in mussel populations reaching that same target of selection (shorter grey lines in Fig. 3a).
…
Figure 3. Summary of simulated evolution over 50 years, using different underlying heritabilities and population turnover rates. (…) Arrowheads indicate the mean phenotype after 50 years of evolution, and arrow lengths indicate the change in mean phenotype from the initial mean phenotype towards the target of selection.

That’s a simulated 50 years of evolutionary responses to predicted circa 2100 levels of CO₂, not “the time it takes for the waters to upwell along the Pacific Coast of NA from wherever they started”.

It is not my responsibility if the links do not work from that page. The references are still there and valid and would be searchable in any of the many online databases of scholarly articles.

That, ‘my friends’, is scientific research.

As for the personal attacks (time at work, ‘kill the children’, ad nauseum). Whatever. Standard attack-the-person tactic by people who do not have the observational data on their side and so can’t ‘threadbomb’ with actual references to scholarly articles.

Darryl: I do not know the answer to your specific question myself. I would suggest Google Scholar to find more relevant abstracts and hopefully fully published articles that might answer your question. My hunch though is that, given that before 1950 CO2 emissions grew far less rapidly and were of far smaller magnitude, the Earth did not respond strongly to that extra trapped heat. After 1950 though, the increase in CO2 emissions is quite incredible. It doubled from 1950 to 1960… 1970 was tripled the 1950 then it looks like the 70s oil crisis knocked it down a bunch. Very generally, I would say that such a huge increase in such short periods would simply be too short for the world temperatures to respond as quickly. Takes a while to turn the boat even if you have the full throttle hard-a-starboard. Of course… when the momentum finally catches up, the boat really whips around. I personally think we have been experiencing exactly that with the big increases in record high temp anomalies, accelerating sea ice declines, and weather anomalies since perhaps the 1990s, but definitely through the 2000s.

A couple quick comments:Smokey says: “Thus, an ice-free Arctic is routine, natural, and normal. Any claims that “this time it’s different” require scientific evidence. “This time IS different! I didn’t see the link to the “15 papers”, but almost certainly they are to a time 5,000-10,000 years ago. The orbit of the earth changes in ways that are confirmed by both theory and observation. 5,000 – 10,000 years ago, there was significantly more sunlight in the Arctic summer. More sunlight = warmer = less summer ice.
Unless, of course you don’t count Milankovitch cycles and changing insolation as legitimate scientific factors that affect temperature.

Pamela Gray says “Consider this: Warmed pools of water from ENSO pattern oscillations, riding on the surface conveyor belt, spills (part of it) into the Arctic where it warms the undersurface of the ice, melting it away. “
I have looked extensively at statistical correlations between Arctic ice and various climate parameters. SOI (Southern Oscillation Index) and MEI (Multivariate ENSO Index) are among the WORST correlations with ice extent. Even up to 24 months later, there is very little correlation between ENSO and ice. On the other hand, PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) does have some strong correlations, especially with a 1.5-2 year lag. AMO (Atlantic Multiodecadal Oscillation) also has some good correlations (but thisis off the top of my head without access to my data atm).

Of course, it might take even longer than 2 years for the warming to reach the Arctic from ENSO events, but 1) by that time it would seem the heating/cooling from an event would have greatly dispersed and 2) other factors in the meantime could mask the effect, making it hard to see.

It may take several trips in the conveyor belt to release all the heat accumulated during equatorial warming oscillations. We could be seeing the previous stacked up La Ninas finally getting rid of all the heat that accumulates in the ocean at the equator during these events. Those stacked warmed pools periodically make it to the Arctic, probably crowding up against each other as the current tries to squeeze through the narrow openings. But not all of it gets in so takes another ride round the world. You might want to look for almost an echo affect, which would be much longer than 1 or 2 years.

Not really, Tim. Sure, there are always minor differences, even from day to day. But the current climate is routine and normal for the Holocene. It is amusing to see the alarmist crowd frightening itself over natural fluctuations. And the null hypothesis remains un-falsified.

Smokey — let me get this straight. You are saying a 5-10% change in solar input to the Arctic is “not really” different??? You maintain that the energy input from the sun during the Arctic summer could be different by 10’s of W/m^2 and that would be “minor”???

I’d love more charts — how about one showing mid-summer insolation in the Arctic for the past ~ 10,000 years?

“…what was solar activity during the Maunder Minimum? Schrijver et al. suggest it was on the level of what we have seen in 2008-2009. If so, the difference in the total solar energy we would observe during a ‘Maunder Minimum’ of any duration [50+ years, 500 years, 5000 etc] would be 0.05% of the average over the past 40 years. Such a deficit would lower the temperature 0.04C.”

So during the Maunder — one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene — solar influence caused only a minuscule 0.04ºC difference.

Your confirmation bias sure has you under control, and you don’t even realize it.

• • •

Only 12 days to go before Arctic ice essentially vanishes! Or so the alarmist crowd claims.

I will not bother to address each of your excuses at September 10, 2012 at 12:55 pm, but I write to address this piece of nonsense in your post

As for the personal attacks (time at work, ‘kill the children’, ad nauseum). Whatever. Standard attack-the-person tactic by people who do not have the observational data on their side

The “personal attacks were from you; e.g.

you most certainly are a hypocrite in the first degree.

Importantly, you raised the issue about sacrificing “the children” and I explained how your accusations against realists are not valid but they do apply to you and your assertions. You have not addressed my explanation and have persisted with those assertions.

Please note; the claim that climate realists are sacrificing “our children and our children’s children” is a common smear used by warmists. It needs to have an end put to it and, therefore, I intend to challenge it whenever it is presented.

So, I again requestWhy do you want to kill the children?

That question is not a “personal attack”. it is a reasonable request in the light of what you have said. Either answer the question or admit you were wrong when you made your assertions and you were also wrong when you made your accusations that we – not your assertions – were sacrificing ”children”. And apologise for the untrue accusations.

Answer the questionWhy do you want to kill the children?
or admit you were wrong and apologise.

Chris, have to challenge that. A heat gain would be measured (by some means or some place) immediately-like pouring water into a glass. That is what I meant by heat is quantitative. no cause and effect lag time. Other effects may lag.
Also, just to clarify, I am sure you meant the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Also, the Increase in the % of C-12 compared to C-14 would suggest a significant (loose term) contribution from fossil fuel sources. However, as a caveat to the last sentence, the science community is finding an increase in the flow of CO2 in and out of sinks. My point is there are just too many variables to have a high degree of certainty and in the upcoming IPPC-5th report there are hints that there will be noted more uncertainty of attribution.
After giving myself a headache for the last several years trying to be objective in studying the various models and the science behind each, (my background is chem,physics and math) I have come to be in agreement with many scientists who have come to the conclusion that climate science is in a period of negative discovery. We are learning that there is so much we don’t know.
Also, many of the models (which still have to be considered hypothesis) have predictions which have been contradicted; to which the response from some in the climate community is that (at least in part) there is something wrong with the observations.
The ad hominem attacks have gone both ways and are pathetic. ‘Climate Change denier’ is IMO by far the worst, not because it is an arrogant, I know better than you term, but one that some Journalists originated by making comparisons to those who would deny the slaughter by the Nazi’s. To make that comparison is offensive and shows disregard for the magnitude of a tragedy.
I believe that one thing that is lacking and very unusual, is that there really is no discourse among scientists with varying viewpoints –and quite honestly it is more so by those who strongly believe in AGW
In general, that are choosing not to have that discourse. There has been more of a circling of the wagons and that shows a lack of integrity.
Everyone should realize that it is not about winning an argument but about serving humanity.
The title of Michael Mann,s new book says it all in referring to the climate wars. I personally find him disgusting in that he seems to make everything about him. Each, and all of us need to reflect on what we are doing and accept the fact that we may be wrong to some degree.

I am sure that you are aware that most of the IR frequencies that can be absorbed by CO2 are mostly absorbed. That was known a hundred years ago in lab experiments.
It was some of those German scientists during world war 11 that developed the atomic model that deals with the absorption and emission in all directions of small amount of energy, millions of times in a second. It is believed to cause a positive feedback of water vapor. Unlike the GH effect which is due to preventing convection, it is convection that would cause warming.
It should by called the Tyndall Gas effect instead of the green house effect/ To Date predictions from the models have been shown to be not well observed. .
My own believe (currently) is that there may be a small amount of AGW, but a larger amount of any warming is from natural variations. I can give you at least six regarding solar or cosmic radiation.Trying to sequester a fundamental component of life would IMO be a serious mistake.
The trouble is when the IPCC was formed the wrong question was asked. “Is CO2 causing warming” Answer to the positive and there will be more money for more study, A career is made. Answer to the negative and find something else to do. The question should have been “What are possible causes of a change in climate” and give consideration to all. There have been and are many studies that various solar changes may be the greatest cause. In any case correlation does not prove causation.

Pamela says: ” You might want to look for almost an echo affect, which would be much longer than 1 or 2 years.”

Unfortunately, there just isn’t that much good data. With ~ 35 years of satellite data, it would be reasonable to look for 1-2 year lags, since there could be many of these in the course of 35 years. But if the lag is 5-10 years (or longer), then it would only potentially have happened a couple times in the data set. Statistical analysis is not going to find weak signals with only a few occurrences in the data set. With 1000 years of good data, then such effects could be sought and found, but we have to work with what we have.

Smokey says: “Your confirmation bias sure has you under control, and you don’t even realize it.”

In some cases that might be true, but here it is your ignorance that is showing. The fact that you can never counter my facts with anything other than irrelevant charts and irrelevant quotes (Maunder Minimum has NOTHING to do with the current discussion) does not bode well for you.

(For what it is worth, I do agree with you on a few points. Everything else being equal, more CO2 will tend to make plants grow better. And too much reliance is often put on the output of models. And predicting the effects (both positive and negative) of warming are tough. So I tend not to discuss the effects, but rather the basic science of IR radiation and insolation and thermodynamics.)

Here is a chart of measured ocean pH levels. Thus, the claim that pH is being affected is bunkum.

Here is a pH chart going back to the 1700’s. As usual, there is nothing alarming.

And this source shows that rather than harming shellfish, a less alkaline ocean actually promotes shell growth.

Next, this chart shows that CO2 has no effect on calcification of organisms.

If and when oyster, crab, shrimp and lobster prices all begin to rise together, I will take another look. But right now the iron law of supply and demand falsifies the ‘disappearing oyster’ nonsense. Empirical evidence always trumps pay-to-play papers. Thus, another baseless CO2=CAGW claim is falsified.

Finally, here is a good chart of the AMO Index. Further proof of natural variability.

It is not my responsibility if the links do not work from that page. The references are still there and valid and would be searchable in any of the many online databases of scholarly articles.

Thus you have not verified the links, thus you have not checked out the work at the ends of the links. Thus you’re just regurgitating a long list of references without any real knowledge of what they are really and fully discussing.

And what does this Great Important Paper say?

Abstract

Arctic sea ice cover has declined over the past few decades. The end of summer September ice extent reached a record minimum in 2007. While there has been a modest recovery since then, the past four years (2007–2010) show the lowest sea ice extent in the 30-year satellite record. Submarine and satellite ice thickness measurements show a factor of two decrease (3 m to 1. 4 m) from 1957–1976 to 2003–2007. There has been a shift from sea ice cover consisting mainly of ice more than a year old to ice less than a year old. These changes have resulted in a less robust ice cover that is more sensitive to dynamic and thermodynamic forcing. Changes in atmospheric pressure fields in recent years have affected the distribution of ice in the Arctic Basin. Increases in advected ocean heat through Bering Strait may serve as a trigger for ice retreat in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. More open water has led to enhanced solar heat input and warming of the upper ocean and greater ice melt. While there may not be a tipping point for Arctic sea ice cover, positive feedbacks do contribute to rapid changes. The declining Arctic sea ice cover is affecting human activities.

This is a plain dry description of conditions, such as would be expected from the US Army Corps of Engineers (not exactly the same as the US Army). There is nothing alarming here.

The closest thing to controversial is: “While there may not be a tipping point for Arctic sea ice cover, positive feedbacks do contribute to rapid changes.” But this is true. When the waters coming into the Arctic have more heat, more sea ice melts from underneath, reducing the insulating ice cover, which allows more heat to be radiated into space. The feedback is, the ice albedo effect adds some more heat, removing some more ice, thus increasing the cooling.

When the Arctic has more heat to dump to space, it dumps it faster. That’s it.

I have now looked through the paper, read a lot of it. Did you? There is no blaming of “anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions”. “Global warming” isn’t in it. “Climate change” has two mentions:

Arctic sea ice cover acts both as a climate change indicator and as an amplifier.
…
However, changes in ice extent due to the seasonal cycle are so large that they then to obscure any signal due to interannual variability or climate change.

That’s it. And as used, “climate change” can refer to warming or cooling.

The entire paper is a dry description of conditions and a presentation of relatively-recent Arctic sea ice history. No blame is assigned. It is noted the decline indicates a warming trend, that’s all. It is not controversial.

If you were believing this was some searing indictment of human CO₂ emissions loudly proclaiming the immediate need for worldwide societal and energy technology change, you are wrong. It is nothing.

And by threadbombing the references of this Great Important Paper that is nothing alarming, you have made much ado about nothing.

No, barry. Graphs are based upon data, and most folks can see at a glance what the graphs are saying.

The time series of my share portfolio has an uncanny resemblance to the GISS global temperature record. Generally there is a rising trend, with 2005 being a high point, whereupon my shares flatline, with a bit of a dip in 2008.

I conclude, therefore, that my share portfolio either causes global temperature to change, or that global temperature change is responsible for my changing fortunes.

There is a natural explanation for declining Arctic ice: the Atlantic Oscillation

You link to a graph of the Arctic Oscillation. I think this is what you actually mean.

The AO fully explains why the Arctic is losing ice, but the Antarctic is gaining ice.

The AO fluctuates randomly, on daily, weekly and monthly time scales. The trend in sea ice has been much more consistent. However, if we are to imagine that the AO has a longer term cycle, and if we assume that it has a strong impact on sea ice coverage, then let’s see what the data tells us.

There is no step change in the early 70s. There are strong positive anomalies around 1990, and strong negative around 2010. There are quite a fewgraphicalrepresentations. If you compare all these with Spencer’s graph, his is the odd one out. Perhaps that’s because his analysis, alone of all the indexes, omits March anomalies.

There is a warm phase in the late 30s coincident with a period of low sea ice coverage, and a strong warming trend starting from about 1970, coincident with the strongly trending sea ice decline since then.

The sea ice fit to Arctic temperatures is MUCH stronger than with the AO index.

And it is intuitively obvious. Why wouldn’t Arctic sea ice repond strongly to temperature changes? We see it happen on a massive scale every year.

Seems to me people are grasping at straws to refute the obvious. The best correlation for Arctic sea ice behaviour is Arctic temperature. By far.

12 days to go until Arctic ice is essentially gone. Wagers, anyone?

Definitely. I’ll bet you $1000 (US) that there will be more than a million sq km of Arctic sea ice (extent, any index) in 12 days time, or at any time this year.

As a layperson I try very hard not to pretend to know much of anything, which is why I generally refer to the big data stores of knowledge and to the research that has been actually published.

However, I am also quite fed up with the notion that some peoples views should be taken as legitimate or in any way convincing simply because of some ‘right’ to free speech and equal time. I know enough to know it does not work that way in any field of science.

If I walked into my Doctors office and declared that There is “no scientific evidence” that nicotine is at all related to the (hypothetical) cancer in my throat my Doctor would either laugh at me, or sit me down and explain why I was wrong, or both. Either way, I’d be wrong because the mountains of evidence say so and my Doctor is the one with the years of experience and access to that research, not me.

It should be no different with Climate science.

The only reason it is different is because of the political and economic ramifications of what they are saying. And that has led to a general and targeted vilification of anyone in the profession. One of the chief cheerleaders of that vilification is, of course, this website.

It is, in my view, unfolding to be one of the great tragedies of human intellectual development stunningly (truly) led by the US, one of the most developed and advanced nations In the world.

Richard: I believe my scenario would both put far less in danger and end up with far fewer deaths than yours. And nowhere did I ever suggest or asked whether YOU wanted to kill any children. Only you did that (which is a smear btw)… And then accused me of smearing you when I called you on it. If you don’t see the hypocrisy in that, I can’t do much for you.

However, you are trying to fade my side of the bet. Doesn’t work that way. I offered to wager that ‘essentially no Arctic ice in 12 days’ is wrong.

But nice try. If you’re still interested, then we’ll have to define ‘essentially’. Because 1,000,000 sq km is far more than ‘essentially ice free’. About one-tenth of that is where I would draw the over/under line. See how it works?

Actually, I just posted that to ridicule the handful of nutty true believers who try to sell everyone on the false conjecture that the current Arctic conditions are unprecedented. They are not, as I have shown many times. See, the Arctic is a region. It has a regional climate, as does the Antarctic. So global ice cover is pretty much unchanged, because the Antarctic is adding ice. If CO2 was the cause, the Antarctic would also be losing ice. QED

Now if you don’t mind, I’m going to check out the new ICESAT thread, which debunks yet another warmist myth. Feel free to join me there.

The whole of the climate debate would be better if we all showed each other the respect that comes from a quality of character that causes us to state our concerns, whatever they may be, as opposed to getting stoned with a who cares attitude.
First, we must carefully consider each and all points of view.
That said; Barry, I would not bet the barn and the kitchen sink.

I offered to wager that ‘essentially no Arctic ice in 12 days’ is wrong.

Well, I agree with you. Has anyone tried to make a strong case along the lines of what you’re saying?

I’m sure there must be some people in the world saying that current sea ice extent is unprecedented in the history of the planet, but I’m not sure i’ve come across them. Still, there are always people making over-confident, unfounded remarks. I’m chatting to one just now.

It’s possible there was ‘essentially’ no sea ice coverage in the Arctic at the holocene thermal maximum about 8000 – 9000 years ago, but I’m not sure what that tells us about today. The Arctic was receiving stronger insolation back then, and the melt seasons were longer – due to orbital dynamics. Orbital dynamics should see the Arctic cooling over the long term, but the temperature has jumped by a 2 degrees C over the last 100 years, most of that in the last few decades. Something is making Arctic temps buck the long term trend.

As for ‘unprecedented’, it would appear that the decadal rate of summertime sea ice decline of is unmatched over the observational record.

You might as well save the electrons and the wrist strain. Chris Alemany has Noble Cause Blindness, takes a while to recover from it, sometimes years. Some people never realize they have it.

“It’s for the greater good.” Which by definition is not for individual good. Same as when justifying the launching of wars, it is acceptable that individuals be lost, collateral damage, as after the defeat those remaining will be better off under the enlightened leadership of the victor.

Besides, it is unimaginable that we allow these needy people of the world the same cheap energy that we of the Western world built our civilization on, as they wouldn’t know how to handle it. As has long been ingrained into the human consciousness from A Man Called Horse to Pathfinder, from the European colonization of the Americas to the British occupation of India, only white people can save brown people, they can’t save themselves.

Brown people are not wise enough to handle cheap readily-available energy. They are not smart enough to comprehend how damaging fossil fuels are to the planet. Sure, it might seem like a good idea to we skeptics to let them have it, to build their own wealth, then they too can afford to adapt to and cope with whatever damaging effects may arise from global warming.

But those who are convinced of the certainty of CAGW know this cannot be allowed to pass. The brown people need to be looked after, they cannot be allowed that cheap energy. It is up to the wise white people, the scholarly scientists and learned politicians, to chart their future for them. White people must give them clean sustainable energy, so they don’t carelessly pollute their environment, nor damage the lives of white people with their carbon pollution. There must be global treaties to restrict carbon, with payments to the governments of the brown people so they keep their own kind controlled.

And if more of the brown people than the white people become collateral damage in the war against carbon, even many many more, that’s just the vagaries of war, can’t be helped. The wise white people are building a better future for both brown and white, the descendents of the surviving brown people will be grateful for the better world that was crafted for them.

For the greater good, done to them for their own good. This is what Chris Alemany and his fellow “acceptors of the science” are certain must be done. They have Noble Cause Blindness. Before you can get them to accept that what they believe is wrong, they must first be willing to see what they have truly been advocating. Not only can this take awhile, sometimes, despite all attempts to help them, the condition is permanent. As is said, there’s none so blind as those who will not see.

If I walked into my Doctors office and declared that There is “no scientific evidence” that nicotine is at all related to the (hypothetical) cancer in my throat my Doctor would either laugh at me, or sit me down and explain why I was wrong, or both. Either way, I’d be wrong because the mountains of evidence say so and my Doctor is the one with the years of experience and access to that research, not me.

It’s tobacco use which can cause throat cancer, with the addictive properties of the nicotine in the tobacco leading to continued tobacco use.

Now that you have misidentified nicotine instead of tobacco as causing throat cancer, much as CO₂ is blamed for global warming caused by natural cycles, will you admit to your mistake, just as Climate Science™ should admit to theirs?

So no, no one has attempted to make a strong case that sea ice would be gone by 2012. Zwally puts it at the highest end of estimates, and he qualifies it with “could be.” I thought maybe it had been a central estimate from some individual, or a prediction considered most likely by the author.

I suppose your ‘bet’ has rhetorical value.

So, Arctic temperature is a better fit to Arctic sea ice behaviour than any other indicator. Care to comment?

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 10, 2012 at 5:36 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think we have a Catch 22 situation here. He can’t admit to all of his mistakes on this thread without thread bombing.

In some regions, temperatures have gone down, too, but the global temperature is up. No one expects uniform behaviour over the globe, and different regions have different dynamics. For Antarctica, there were even predictions of initially increased sea ice in a warming world. Virtually all predictions were that Antarctic sea ice would decline much more slowly than Arctic sea ice, because of Antarctica’s relative thermal isolation form the rest of the planet due to the circumpolar winds and sea currents. If the world was unfeatured, like a billiard ball, then we could expect no regional differences.

So global ice cover is pretty much unchanged, because the Antarctic is adding ice.

barry, don’t you read?? I told you I was moving on to the ICESAT thread, and invited you to follow. And for the record, global temps have been rising for several hundred years — naturally — at about the same rate. Lately global temperatures have stalled. But the rising temps since the LIA contribute to the Arctic ice situation, and there is no evidence that it is a bad thing.

Nothing you have posted could be considered scientific evidence of human causation. You simply believe it, and that is enough for you. But not for me. I need decisive testable, reproducible, empirical, measurable evidence of AGW. You have produced none, so I am moving on to a newer thread.

Be as upset as you like, but the fact is that your arguments remain unconvincing.

Darryl: “The whole of the climate debate would be better if we all showed each other the respect that comes from a quality of character that causes us to state our concerns, whatever they may be, as opposed to getting stoned with a who cares attitude.”

Indeed. That will never happen with places like this which actively promotes no respect to the people in the field. It will also never happen with political entities using it as a political football and fanning the flames for political gain on either side.

It comes down to trust in our scientists to do the job they are payed to do.

On our current course, no matter who is right, the result will be far from the best possible.

Several Things I would like all to consider.
1. Richard Courtney : I read your history of the climate scare as it pertains to Lady (Margaret)
Thatcher and her minor in Chemistry. Thank you for that. Very interesting and informative. I still have it. I wondered if it pertained more, or at least most to the involvement of the UK.
Much can be learned from that info tangentially. One overwhelming fact is that scientists do not venture into politics although engineers sometimes do. Therefore politicians will tend to listen to scientists who may have a slant toward there biases.
2. Likewise, members of the media will lean toward those who have similar political views.
3. As warned indirectly by former president Eisenhower, scientists will become activists. This happens because governments (through various organizations) control money distributed for research which is done mostly at the University level. Therefore Universities will tend to group think their conclusions. Those with opposing views may become outcasts. Among the in groups I have seen overwhelming arrogance. The former president of Penn State defended Mike Mann because (paraphrasing) ‘He is a good scientist. We know that because he brings in lots of money so he must be’. I wonder what that former president is doing now.?
4. It is happening in other fields as well. Friends of mine who are physicians have said emphatically that the conclusion of a group in a. room is that of the or she who speaks the loudest.
5. Because money can be a driver of science as well as politics, so can science mimic politics
in its acidic nature. (pH dropping) well that was sick.
6. I certainly appreciate what Anthony has done regarding the study of US temp measuring sites.
It was sorely needed. It bothers me that anyone would not consider that there is no or minimal UHI effect. Measurements bare that out. Driving from out of a tiny town in the early evening, one can see a drop in a cars thermometer.
7. Chris A. I appreciate your response to me, and I believe you are sincere. Maybe we can take this to another level. Honestly, ultimately who cares about who wins the argument. It is about the choices we must make that is of concern. So lets look at things another way. There are things
on which we may agree.

A. The population of the world has gone from 2 Billion in the 1920’s to 7 billion. That kind of an increase in that amount of time we might all agree is unprecedented. It happened because there was more food, water, medical help and sanitary conditions available. We also know that much is still lacking in parts of the world. That the basics were more available came about as the result of an industrial revolution that required energy. Without the available energy it would not have happened.
B. Except for Nuclear, Geothermal to a small amount and perhaps gravity to a very tiny amount.
(Like using Tides) we are using solar energy that has been stored over a long period of time or current solar energy (including wind) In a 100 years we have used a great deal of that stored energy. I will not debate whether there is enough left for 50 years or 5,000 years. I do know that it is finite. Also, with more people we are increasing our rate of usage. Energy usage is quantifiable. A discussion can be had on each and every renewable source of energy. As time flies will we need other sources than long time stored energy.
There are positives and negatives to each. Two examples 1. Your food costs have gone up I am sure. Why? Well, I am from a farm community and I can guarantee that some farmers are getting rich (I have a tiny amount) while others are going bankrupts. Crops = money
Meat = bankruptcy. I do not believe in using a food source for energy. However, I will be visiting a company in Florida which may produce a great amount of ethanol from algae, It does so without consuming the algae. I am excited to learn more about it.
2. A great amount of money has been allocated to wind energy. Now consider a bias. Oil companies were fined over $600,000 for some where between 50 and 100 migratory birds getting caught in oil slick in North Dakota. Meanwhile the Department of Natural Resources has estimated that over 500,000 birds and an untold number of bats are killed by windmills annually. Also the count of golden and bald eagles is approaching 1,000. What is the importance of enforcing such a skewed law? Has anyone read anything of it in the news?
Now by comparison, do you think I would make the news if I brought home one bald eagle which I had shot? Maybe I could write a best selling book about it! I might make enough to pay the fine.
7. I would be very willing to discuss categorically the history of any weather event, the intensity of which has been credited to AGW. I have been studying our involvement in the studies of climate change as an illumination of human nature. This statement, I hope, is not offensive to anyone, but I have come to understand witch trials, the believe in eugenics, McCarthyism, racism and much more of the dark side of human nature as a result of how the world has proceeded in the study of climate.
I know that readers from other than the US may question this, but I have come to realize what a radical idea that a three pronged form of government was in achieving balance in a democracy. Now all three branches are have seemed to extend beyond their constitutional power. The need for oversight of all human endeavor is necessary. We are just not that good of a species. I believe the IPCC will eventually change radically or collapse because there does not seem to be any oversight.. They have their own rules, but do not follow them when inconvenient. They were given strong recommendations from comments from within by the IAC, Human nature! A basic requirement of science is to continue to evaluate.
IMO incontrovertible evidence of an unproven hypothesis is a paradoxical statement.

………
Darryl:
7. Chris A. I appreciate your response to me, and I believe you are sincere. Maybe we can take this to another level. Honestly, ultimately who cares about who wins the argument. It is about the choices we must make that is of concern. So lets look at things another way. There are things
on which we may agree.

A. : Agreed

B: Agreed

B–> Two examples 1. Your food costs : Agreed
B–> 2: All laws should be applied equally. All taxes (or lack of, or subsidies) should as well under the same principle. Much is skewed in many ways when it comes to the various energy sources currently under development.

7. Sounds exceptionally interesting and relevant.

You’re right on people outside the US questioning your love of 3 three pronged government. I personally think it’s a terribly inefficient and wasteful construct that works terribly for all involved citizens, governance and executive perspective and has been shown to benefit pork barreling and special interests. But that’s not really worth discussing here.. nor perhaps anywhere. :)

“IMO incontrovertible evidence of an unproven hypothesis is a paradoxical statement.”

Are you saying the IPCC have suggested their conclusions are incontrovertible? I would strongly speak against that viewpoint if only for the fact that as an international body their conclusions are, by design, exceedingly watered down. I’ve also heard that from a lead author of the IPCC report. They have also clearly indicated in their own reports that they are not happy with how uncertainties are being related in their reports nor the accuracy of how models are being presented.

Are you saying the IPCC have suggested their conclusions are incontrovertible? I would strongly speak against that viewpoint if only for the fact that as an international body their conclusions are, by design, exceedingly watered down.

Nisse- yep I agree.
I have to mention that regarding the IPCC and the report summaries made for policy makers, it is all politicians will ever read. To support both of what Richard and Paul have said, it has become quite well known that the summaries are not written by the scientists involved, but by others with a vested interest. Everything in the summary seems to be negotiated. Many authors in the IPCC have expressed frustration that the conclusions for policy makers are not what they have said.
Chris, I would agree and clarify that the IPCC has not made that statement as such. (that I know of)
Some leaders of scientific organizations and others have made the statement.
It is interesting that leaders of several scientific organizations have made that kind of a statement and that it caused in return a strong backlash against the leadership. It might be that this separation of thought should be investigated further as to why it exists.

Also, Chris, by their actions I have lost trust in some of our scientists. I would argue with anyone that Mr. Hansen as gone off the deep end.
most of us can write a book about trust in the media. They have to make a profit and too often bad news is good news and good news is no news. (I heard that somewhere)
There are over 40 magazines in which scientific studies can be published. Results abound on all sides of the climate issue. The media without a doubt chooses results of a certain nature.
Some of the Journals like ‘Nature’ have lost some of their esteemed quality IMO because of their selection bias.

““Ok people, move along. There’s nothing to see here”. No records will be broken and all will be fine eventually when the ice recovers, as it does every winter.”

Not sure if you’re being sarcastic or not… the records Have been broken. The ice has not recovered. Merely freezing over the top is not the same when the mass is gone from underneath.

Darryl: Losing trust in one individual is natural. But it does not change the conclusions of the science. Many people seem to think that because they personally dislike Hansen, or Gore, or whoever… then they do not have to believe the science. That is a false assumption. The science does not change just because one guy has gone nuts because of what he feels are the consequences of societies inactions.

Chris, you are the most naive person I have ever met when it comes to science. And you must be quite young. Here is an example of common folks questioning accepted science:

Autism used to be thought of as the result of “cold mother syndrome”. And there was scientific consensus on this point. It even justified children being removed from the care of their mothers, sometimes forcibly. However, when the internet came along, mothers started comparing notes across the US. Through their efforts, substantial efforts, the trumpeters of consensus started to question and doubt. Thank God for common folks watching the hen house.

The risk of scientists being wrong (and even unethical to one degree or another) is quite substantial, as history as demonstrated time and time again. Are you willing to ignore that risk? It seems apparent you are. You would have been an easy mark for snake oil salesman of old.

the cold mother syndrome was dispelled as a manifestation of racism and classism when REAL data and real understanding of the human brain was actually introduced into the science IN THE 1970S!. It had NOTHING to do with the mothers on the Internet. Wow.

It is the data that shows us the truth. It did so with Autism, and it has with climate science since the first measurements 120 years ago!

REPLY: OK Enough of this, it is getting wildly off-topic. Further similar discussions will be snipped. – Anthony

Chris, you may have assumed that I did not make apparent. I said it was because of the actions of some scientists. They have formed a first reaction ‘team’ to put out fires in response to the ’cause’. On balance, they do not consider anything which, in fact, disproves the hypothesis.
If they were seeking the truth, they would welcome the contrary information.
At one time I had cursory info, you know ice melting, polar bears drowning etc.
I told this to my daughter who has degrees in biology and environmental science.
She asked me where I had gotten the info, I said “They Said” at which point she chimed in
“They?” She had me dead to rights, because she knew that I would never except “they”
That was about four years ago. That was when I went about trying to prove her wrong.
********I want to emphasize this. IT IS BECAUSE OF THE SCIENCE THAT I HAVE BECOME QUITE SKEPTICAL. I used to use a quote by Mark Twain which was approximately ‘There is something fascinating about science. One gets a wholesale return of conjecture on a very small investment of fact’
I have not found anything that merits an incontrovertible characterization. and, I think I have studied it more in the last years than the amount of study I did for my undergraduate degree,.
including most of what is in working group 1 of the last two reports of the IPCC.
I would look at anything that is absolute evidence. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere does not count as evidence. I would suggest though, that it would indicate that further study should be made.

Smokey says: September 10, 2012 at 3:24 pm“Tim, go argue with Leif. That I would like to see.”
Actually I would enjoy seeing someone like Leif comment on your disbelief in the hypothesis that the (more summer Arctic insolation 5-10 thousand years ago) = (less summer Arctic ice 5-10 thousand years ago). Invite him over! :-)

You keep arguing that it is all “natural cycles” yet when such an actual cycle surfaces, then you argue like mad AGAINST it!

Why don’t you move your fixation with me to the ICESAT thread? It is much more current.

And I posted Leif’s quote because it deconstructed your claim regarding the sun. Go argue with him if you’re unhappy, don’t try to put it back on me. Personally, I think you’re afraid to challenge Leif. Now, on to ICESAT.

There is no NEED to challenge him. I don’t disagree with what he said! In fact, the quote and the paper he is referencing actually AGREES with my point and argues against your point!

TSI is not a major factor in climate, since TSI hardly changes (as noted in the quote you gave). However, the DISTRIBUTION of insolation DOES matter — and several thousand years ago the North Pole got more summer sun and hence would be expected to have less summer ice.

TSI is not a major factor in climate, since TSI hardly changes (as noted in the quote you gave). However, the DISTRIBUTION of insolation DOES matter — and several thousand years ago the North Pole got more summer sun and hence would be expected to have less summer ice.

The position of the Arctic Circle is not fixed, but directly depends on the Earth’s axial tilt, which fluctuates within a margin of 2° over a 40,000 year period,[2] notably due to tidal forces resulting from the orbit of the Moon. The Arctic Circle is currently drifting northwards at a speed of about 15 m (49 ft) per year; see Circle of latitude for more information.

So since the Arctic Circle is currently heading northward, the North Pole (the Arctic) is getting more summer sun, hence it is expected to have less summer ice.